Skip to main content

Full text of "Edward Bennett Williams"

See other formats

*1 STAf^XV«>POf^to>.M 

1. • 

' ' Office M l :f hm • ‘UNITEL.^^1^3 GOVERNMENT 

* D* M* r 

A. ff. Belmntj 

DATE: January 14, 1953 



» ■ 




XH«a 4 hltQ<^ 

Mohr ^ 


To advise you ^ursuan-t to a request from the Director liaM 
of informaiion from our files concerning -the captioned individual. 


By memorandum dated January 18, 1953 1 Mr, Scatter day 
advised Ur, Ladd that the Director desired a complete summary 
of all information in the files of this Bureau cohoe'rning: 

Williams together with any information which could bp dy^oreetly 
ascertained by the Washington Field Office without. condQ^ting 
any investigation, -t». 


t^^^^lf^Willigms/boj3C^grtfgrd, Conne cti cut, Ma y 31, 1980 j 
’ " ^fie ce Wed' XTS. Degree Holy Gross CoITegef^orcester , 

>1941, Applied for position of clerk with Bureau, 1941; recommended 
luhfavgrably , Received LL,B, Degree, Georgetown University, 
Wa sliingt o n^ D, G, , 1944, Admitted to District of Columbia Bar, 
"I9'44,"" Professor of Criminal Law and Evidence, Georgetown 
wniversitp, -01946 to present. Active in local bar association 
'affairs^ ' Admitted to practice before Supreme Court of U,S,, 

1947, Uember -of law firm, of Chase and Williams, March, 1949, 
to February.^ 1951, Presently maintains law office at 839 17th 
Street, if,- f. Washington, D, G, Inquiries by Bureau made. 

\during investigation of Charles E, Shaver, former counsel for 
Select Committee on Small Business, U,S, Senate, who was in-^ 
juesiigfoted for" fraud against the Government in 1951-1952, 
'investigatio'n did not involi^\wi 11 tarns, Williams has extensive 
\law practices &nd has reprfs^ted Senator Joseph McCarthy 
O Wise,) on several Action; None, For your in- 

Iformationi. ’ ' A M ‘ / // 




' JW 28 'iSJ 

\\ 12 


^.SD£C 4 '' 



Hem to Mr» D, M* Ladd 
from A* Belmont 


In the preparation of this memorandum. Williams ' 
name was searched through the double initial. However, 
the search was limited to the States of Gonnectiout and 
Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, His name was 
also searched in the Identification Division where no 
arrest record was found, « 


No investigation has been conducted by this 
Bureau concerning Williams in which he was a subject. 
However, as will be explained more fully below, certain- 
investigations conaerningyhim were conducted in the case^ 
entitled ' "Charles E, Shaver, Fraud Against the 
Government," (46-17642), - \ " - 


Edward Bennett Williams, swq^‘ born in Hartford,. 
Connecticut, on May '31, 1980, ' After receiving his high^ 
school education ^in Haftfdrd, he 'attended Holy Cross 
College, Worcester, Massachusetts, 'from, 1937 until 1941 
when he graduated with an A, B, Degree, (Summa cum laude) 
Williams, graduated from Georgetown University. Law School, 
Washington, D, C,, witli an LL,B, Degree- in 1944, He- was 
admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1944, and in 
1947 was admitted. tO' praoMce before the Supreme Court of 
the United States, - 

Since his admission to the. District of Columbia 
Bar, Williams has engaged in the. practice of law in the 
District and in March,. 1949., formed the' par -pner ship of 
Chase and Williams which maintained law offices, in the Hill 
Building, Washington, D, C,. This partneriShip was di^olved 
in February, 1951, Williams presently maintains his'-offioe. 

^ Search was limited because of common name (400 to 500 , 
references in indices) and no indication he ever resided 
in other localities. 

Memo io Mr* D. jf, lodd 
from A» H* Belmont 

( , 

at 839 17th Street, N* W*, Washington, D. C, In addition 
to his law practice, Williams has been teaching Criminal 
Law and Evidence at Georgetown University Law School since 


Williams, has been an active member of the Bar . , 
Association of the, District of Columbia, and. in 1947 was 
Chairman of the Committee on Delations with the Municipal 
Court of Appeals , In 1948, he was Chairman of the Committee 
on Admissions* During the period 1949-1950, .he was Vice 
President of the local bar association* in> addition to 
membership in the Ideal bar, Williams is a member of the 
American Bar Association* (.Martindale-rHubbell Law Directory, 
i950i 67.-272010). , ' > 


“ " It 

Our-.file.s. reflect that on December 19', 1941, 

Williams' called at the Chief Clerk/s Office of this Bureau 
and' presented an application for employment as a .clerk* 

The interviewing off icer advised that Williams was un- 
doubtedly above- average in ihtsLligence, but appeared somewhat 
inclined to be *'smart alebkie*‘f After ' the interview, it 
was ascertained' that Williams at first presented himself 
to the applicant room with a. number of other persons and‘ 
apparently became impatient with the delay arid subsequently- 
presented, himself to, the Chief Clerk’s Office where he was 
interviewed* Ihe .interviewii^^pfpicer stated that Williams 
eyijlently had the opinion tha.t We' had pulled a, ’’fast- one” 
bf*gding through the Chief Clhrlp^s Office when, he could not 
be immediately interviewed in the^ applicant office* Tor 
this reason the recommendat'ion ms unfavorable* (67-272010) 

Under date of March 2j 1949 j the Bureau received 
an announcement which announced thes formation of the law 
partnership of Nicholas J* Chase, f ormer associate-^ in the 
office of William T* Leahy, Washington, D*- C*, and 
Edward Bennett Williams j former associate with the firm of 
Hogan and Hartson* A notation appeared on this serial 
that neither Chase nof Williams were on -the mailing list 
and that no acknowledgment was necessary* (62-0^40652) 

0 6 > 

Memo to Mr » D. M^ Ladd 
from A* H* Belmont 

During the hearings held by the Subcomittee on 
Privileges and Elecpons of the Committee on Rules and 
Administration, U»'8» Senate, held during February, March 
and Aprils 1951, into the State of Maryland Senatorial 
Election of 1950, Williams appeared before that Subcommittee 
both as a witness and as counsel, for Jon M* Jonke'l, who had 
been the campaign manager f or' the JLonorable John Marshall 
Butler, If* ,S*' Senator from the State, of Maryland*- 

According to an article which appeared in the 
"Times Herald," Washington, D* G», da-ped December 13, 1951, 
Williams was the counsel for Mr* and} Mrs* wijliam McWilliams, 
during the investigation of the Senate Rules Committee into 
crime conditions and' charges of ^police payoffs in the 
District of Columbia* (62-75147-S3-A) 


On September 19, 1951, Williams appeared as counsel 
fpr Martin Berkeley before the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, U* S* House of Representatives, which Committee 
was holding hearings at that time in Los Angeles, California, 
concerning Communist infiltration into the motion picture 
industry. It is noted that Derkeiy, a screen writer, appeared 
before the Committee as a friendly, witness* (100-138754-903) 

During May, 1952, Robert Rossen, subject of a 
pending Security Matter - C investigation being conducted 
by this Bureau, was endeavoring to obtain d passport' from , 
the n* 5. Department of State* In connection with this, 

Rossen had several contacts with Ashley, J, Micholas, Assistant 
Chief „ Passport Division, U*. S, Department of State, 'and also 
had several attorneys, including. Williams, contact Nicholas 
in his behalf* Nicholas advised. Agents of this Bureau that he 
had told Rossen, an admitted former Communist Party, member, 
that the best way in which he could convince the Government, that 
he was no longer a Communist would be, to go to the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation and furnish the Bureau with all information 
regarding the Communist Party which he- .had. learned while he 
was a member* Nicholas stated that when contacted- by Williams 
he had. given Williams the same advice to impart, to Rossen, 
and further that Williams agreed respect to the action 
proposed by Nicholas to Rossen. (100-235432-51) 


- 4 - 



Memo to Mr* D» M* Ladd 
from A* H* Belmont 

, As Counsel for Senator Joseph McCarthy (r Wise,) 

On November 12 and 13 1 1951, | | who 

in 1951 was being held in Geneva, Switzerland on charges 
of being engaged in the political intelligence service of 
a foreign state to the prejudice of Switzerland and of 
obtaining fraudulent services without paying viz,, used 
landlady's tel^hone without her knowledge to call Senator 
Joseph UcCprthy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 
Washington^ D, 0., voluntarily appeared at the New York 
Office for an interview, 

I \ related that after his return to the United 

States and while in Washington, B, C,, he was interviewed 
by Edward Bennett Williams i Sill Building, w ho was an 
attorney for Senator McCarthy, According to \ Williams 

wanted him to prepare a signed statement indicating that 
he had performed no services for Senator Joseph McCarthy, 
[f urther stated that Williams suggested to him that a 
trip to South America might be enjoyable, that there were 
many job opportunities there, and further, had offered to 
pay him $5,000 if he would include in his statement that 
there had nev er been any contact between Senator McCarthy 
and himself, \ \ stated that he gave no statement to 
f/illiams, and likewise had received no money from him, 



According toon article which appeared in the 
\"Washington Star," Washington, B, C. on June 5, 1952,^ 
iSenator McCarthy had made the statement that attorney 
Edward Bennett Williams represented him in the law suit 
brought by columnist Brew Pearson against Senator McCar thy, ini’ 

Affiliation with 

During the course of the Burea u's investigation 
in the case entitled 1 I et al. Fraud 

Against the Government," certain affiliations between 
I l and Williams were looked into. 

- 5 •* 


Memo io Un J); Mi jDadd 
from A» H* Beimont 

It will be recalled that this case arose out of 
charges that p7q nrdt ten. Secretary to Vi ce President 
Ulben V, Barhley, and 

lor his law firm 

were paid fees- in connection with their intervention 

pHh ihe Recon^ruction finance Corporation <(SFO)^ on behalf 
of persons or comoahies seeking loans from- the RFC* I 

The Bur eau's inu estiaaii'dh reflected that on 

. I I t * . ^ ^ J!- ^ ^ ^ 

[February 1, 1950 y 

J, Ohase and Williams, However i 
Williams all stated that 

rented office spape' from Nicholas 
^ * Ohase, and 

, was not ' U' partner in* the 
law firm but instead was .only . paid' for work that he did for 
Chase and Williamsl "‘'fhe firw of Chase an d Willia ms was 

dissolved on February 15^, .1951, and then \ continued; 

the sane arrangement with Chase that he had previously had 
wiNi the firm of Chase and 17i^iams,f,,- , ^ 

The investigation further revealed that during 
1949 and 1950, Williams apparently received fees of some 
$8,000 in connection with his handling of RFC matters. One 
of the, firms' rs^oi'd represented by him was A , F’rank Bowles, 

Inc, of Middletown,' Connecticut, in which I \ appeared 

to have been interested in making appointments and assisting 
in the filing of papers with the, RFC, 

As' revealed, by the- investig ation, Bowles was put 
\in contact with Williams by - J l and had the former handle 

the case, Bowles claimed to have paid Williams $3,500 in 
.October, 1949. Williams stated, that he. received only $1,500 
ind subsequently, returned $500. of this to Bowles, Our in- 
vestigation in no way involved William's in any wrong dealings 
and charges and allegations made by Bowles against Williams 
were not substantiated. 

« « 

Memo io Mr* D* U* Ladd 
from A» E» Belmont 

For your informationy \ \ on January 5j 

1953 f pleaded guilty to three counts of violations of 
Section 231, Title 18, U*S* Code* It is expected that 
he will be sentenced during February, 1953* I t is note d* 
however,, that no dealings between Williams and I I 

are in vol ved, ( 46-1 7642-21 4 ) 

are involved. (46^17642-^214) 
Results of Current Inquiry 

On January 13, 1953, Leonard P* Walsh, a past 
president of the local bar association and a contact of 
the Washington Field Office, confidentially advised thaH 
Williams was presently teaching at the Georgetown 
University Law School where he was regarded as a high-type 
individual, being of excellent character, and loyal without 
'any' qualifications* Walsh further stated that Williams at 
the present time was counsel for Senator Joseph McCarthy, 
was very active in local bar association affairs, and 
recently was the toastmaster at the annual bar association 

[ dinner* Williams is married to the granddaughter of Frank Hogan and 
at one time was employed in Frank Hogan’s law firm* ^ 

Walsh further stated that he had heard within the 
past few days that Williams was seeking the position of 
U* St Attorney in Washington , D* C* 


The Washington Field Office further ascertained 
from a priest at Georgetown University that Williams had 
taught there for the last four or five years, that he is 
considered to be a brilliant individual, and is extremely 
well regarded at the University* (Unrecorded letter dated 
January 13, 1953, from WFO re Edward Bennett Williams* ) 


None* For your information. 

- 7 - 


t> (i 

Office tAemordnauwi • united states government 

Ur* Lade 

FROM j Mr* ScavtejAay 

January 12, 1953 



£p\^jahO y/iLLJ/f m s 

At 4fl2 P*M* today, in your absence, Mr* Hojlomn 
advised that the Director desired a complete suwnary -of all WTTT^ 
information in the Bureau's files cone erning the above 
individual together with any information which could be ascertained 
by the Washington Field Office without conducting any investigation* \ 
Any such information T^ust be obtained very discreetly in ordej^ jj*' ' 
that under no circumstances will Williams learn of such 

JJ he identifying information on Williams is thatne is af t 
'^fawy^f^iw the District ® teacher at one of the \J 

^dcr^ iaw %chools, and isfm^officef' of the D»C* bar, * 

.-AaTidfii I 

I telephonically advised Mr* Lau^hlin of this request 
and he stated it would be handled* 



J> ' ^ r ^ ’ ) . . 

^_JAN‘2S 1953 , 


7 9 FEB 111953 


Office M^mOTcmduM • united stags’ government 

LifeeJiOT, TBl 

SAC, wo 





moRMATm coecMrning 

DATE; January IBj 1^53 

liniM niassiiicatloa 

$38 ToiVSsrlal 
Form 4o74 , r. 

Re Bureau phone- call January 18^ 1953 

It was. conf-ideniiaIly.,asj:iehi^aine(i' fvom LEONARD P. 
WALSH, a past prjssidenf* of 'the ideal Bar Assdqfdiion and a 
go.od cont'ac.t of ihis vffi’odf thd'bfWLLLiAMS •beaqhes- at 
Georgetown 'Law Schooi- arid/ is rdgaid.e^d a$ a yefy h^gh type 
lawyer,' being of excellent chavacter, Xigh-ly' .intelligent 
and loyal without any, qualifdpgtigh', . 'At ^he time WILLIAMS 
was ip the law firm of’' FRANK HOGAN, arid' is .married •po HOGAN ^s 
granddaughter. In the. .past, he was^ associated' in lam practice 
wHh. HOWARD B.OYD and' later in P ^w- firm-iwith NICK CHASE-; 
however,, he presently has his dffic.e at 339 ’•'17th Street, 

N, W,, and. .resides at .571^. He'nt Branch -Road^ Tulip Hills i 

WALSH stated WILLIAMS is now attOThey" fdt Se.nator 
■lOE MoCARTHT,. arid only recently he argued fhe CHARLES E, 
NELSON case on' appeal.i WILLIAMS has. been very active in 
Bqr Association affairs^ and 'was recently toastmaster at the. 
annual Bat dinner., 

WALSH states he heard, within the- last, few days 
that ?/lLLMMS is seeding, the posiiion of United States At- 
torney here in Washington, “ 


It was ascertained in- confidence from a Priest at 
Georgetown . University that WILLIAMS, has taught there -for the 
last four or five years and iis. extremely" well regarded, -He:., 
is ponsidered to ,be tfillidntk ' 

EDWARD LYNCH, ‘ local attorney and contact of ihis^ 
office, yefified the above informati'ph as furnished :by WALSH 
concerning the standing and qualifications of WIIJflAMS,, 

‘ \ 

No further inquifies will be' made at this, time.- un~ 
less advised to the contmry, ' ' \ j 

. JAN 23 1953 
n 1 


iW DN&y 

January 26, 1952 



In conyersatibn with Judge E. A.. Tamm bf tt 
jbistr let. Court for thejpi§ti;ij:fc^i^C^|^i^^ advised m^ 

/^haf several persons had spoken to him conceraing^joe ^dr^ 
^^ ^yilliamp w ho is a candidate for the. position otJL^^r“A 5 o 3 'nev? 

. for the jdistrlcL^f.Columbia... lie stated-, that .so far as ^etknevv^ 
hud ever heard; Mr. Wiliiams was of good.* character and 
(U.cap^e lawyer. Mr. Williams married the daughter of the late. 
Air. Frank Kogan who was one of the leaders of the. D. Cw Bax*, 
r believe: Mr. Williams was'^tbe attorney representing .j^ehaior 
McCarthy in one of his 'lawsuits. 

Very truly yours. 





Office Memormdum 

TO : 

Mr. Rosen 
Mr. Evans 

DATE: February 5> 195il- 



On February 3> 1954> ® telephone message was left at 
Mr. Nichols* Office from Mr. Henshaw. Henshaw said Jack Anderso^"* — 
had told him about a week ago th«t Drew Pearson has evidence to 
jlprove Edward Bennett Williams is bribing .1uries~ and ^o men in — 
I ] a florist shop on nth street' are handling the~ pavnff?^ Andersoii^ — 
reportedly commented that Pearson could take Williams out of 
circulation any time he desired. 

V^ith regard to Mr. Tolson* s inquiry concerning what 
information appears in Bureau files regarding V/illiams, a review 
\of numerous files is presently being conducted. Pending completion 
of this file review it is noted E dward Bbnnett Williams is attorney^ 
for Representative Ernest King Bramblett . on trial in United States 
District Court for The District of Columb^ia/for making false state- 
ments to the Government in violation of Seiction 1001, Title l8. 

Bureau investigation in this case was instituted as result of infor- 
mation in Pearson* s column. Trial which commenced February 2, 195il-> 
is presently in progress. (58-2841). * , , 

In addition, you may recall that Attorney' Williams 
represented former Assistant Attorney General Norman Litt.ell .in 
his successful libel suit against Drew Pearson and that V/^illiams 
represented Senator McCarthy in the suit brought against him by 



The complete file review regarding Williams is being 



• JD ii expedited and a comprehensive memorandum will be submitted on 

<\A completion. 

|FEB 17 W 






Mr. Nichols: 

Mr. Henshaw called and left the follj 

•» Jack Anderson told me about a weel 
Drew Pearson has evidence to pro, on 

Edward BennetRvilliamg is bribing 

Jack said two men in a florist shop ohTltK ^ 
Street were handling the jury pay-offs. I. 





Mr. Glav’i 
Mr. Har! 



Mr. Mohr _ 
.Hr. Trotter.-.^ 
Mr. WinterrowdI 
Trk. Room 

Miss Ganiy ., 

" Jack did not say how Drew is handle 


the information. Jack's only comment was that 
Drew could take E^ut o^ circulation any time) 

- fOhams 

he wanted to. 

" I can't quite \mderstand why Jack gaye me this 

information so freely." 


i * 




Uj- 6 -o:^ <* 1* 


/J ji ht 


81 MARk4j|i9 , 

MAK 10 iyo4j 





Office Mernmndum 




^^r. Rosei 


DATE; 2-10-5^ 

PROM » tip, Evans 




lAOL/nXVLLL/ •• J.*J-W*****^ ^ 


ftSS’FlEO . 

According to phone message to l-fr, Nichols from ^^r. HensH^« 
February 3) 195^) Jack Anderson reportedly stated about a week 
previously that Drevr Pearson has evidence to prove Williams is bribn 
i juries and t\io men in a florist shop on 11th Street handle the payoffs. 
lAs a result of Mr'.. Tolson’s inquiry as to what Bureau files reflect 
•concerning Williams,, numerous files were reviewed. Files refleco 
Williams w^s born 5/31/20, Hartford, Connecticut;, received A.B. degree\ 
Holy Cross College. 19^1, and LL.3., Georgetov^n W^hiversity , 19 *+t‘. He A 
was adMtted to the District of Columbia Bar 19^ end has b^en a ■ - \ 
professor of criminal law and evidence at Georgetown since 19. ^ * — Ih- 4 
quiries were made regard i ng Williams during investlgatibn Pf I j-1 | 

I but investir- ^ 

gationdid not involve VJilliams in Fraud Against the Government case . v.\ 

w miflwfi fnvtnftrly rented office space to 

KaOXUXi .UJLU IIUU XlJLVUJLVtS W JL a.** - ^ « T if rx 4.1^ \ ' 

Williams has extensive law practice. He represented Senator McCarthy ^ 
In^iaw suit brought by Drew Pearson, represented Norman Littell in : 

successful libel suit against Pearson, and presently is defense comsel^.' 
for Representative Ernest King Bramblett on trial in U. S. District i 
Court for the District of Columbia for making false statements bo the U | 
1 Government in violation of Section 1001^ Title I8. Trial- pf Bijamblett , 
\;hich began 2/2/54 resulted from Bureau investigation which' wa.s insti- 
tuted as a result of information in Pearson’s column. 


The non-specific information furnished by Mr. Henshaw- might 
I constitute a jury tampering allegation within the Bureau’s jurisdiction 
Sunder the Obstruction of Justice Statutes iii the event Federal .Courts 
are involved. Therefore, it is rec'ommerided that Drew Pearson 
Jack Anderson be contacted for more ^specific information upon which to 
.base an investigation* or if it is then determined no investigation is 
Iwarrhhted, to refer the matter to;' the De^^^rtm^t^ ^ 

.’addendum: LBN:ptm 2.10-54 ' j?£XK)RI>5P-|T ^ - 
, I do not agree-. I could ^call HenshaV aria- ggk specific 

data since he left a message for me and did not personally talk to me ., I definitely 
recommend against contacting. Pearson or Anderson since W illiam s..iSs' anan Litteii's 
attorney and they would like nothing better than, sojme.'act bn our part which would 
Attactoent ^ justify a story. > ^ \ X 

|l cci_ .Ilr. Nichol?\ ^ /• }J’^, 





J • 



Personal History 

r ' 

^Sdward Bennett Williams was borh in Hartford, Connecticut, 
on Hay Jl, 1920. After he was graduated from high school in Hartford, 
he received, an A.B. degree at Holy Cross College, V/orcester, 
Massachusetts, in 191p.. He received an LL.B. degree in 1944 from 
Georgetovm University Law School, Wasaington, D. C. He Was admitted 
to the District of Columbia Bar in 1944- ^d in 1947 he was a<toitted 
to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States. Since 
his admission to thd bar, Williams has engaged in the practice of 
law in the District of Columbia and in 1949 formed, the partnership: 
of Chase .and Williams, which maintained offices in the Hill Building, 
Wasiiihgton, D. C. This partnership was dissolved £h February, 195^^ 
and Williams presently maintains offices -af 0^9 ^7th Street, MT. W., 
and 1000 Hill Building, V/ashington, D'. 0.^. Williams has been a 

i professor of criminal law and evidence at Ceorgetovni University Law 
School since 1940 • V/illiams nas been an active member' of the Bar 
Association* in the District of Columbia and in 1947 was Chairman, of 
the Committee on delations with the Municipal Court of Appeals. ” In 
1949, he vias Second Vice President and in 1950 he was Vice President 
of the local bar association. In< addition to membership in the 
local bar association, Williams is a member of the Ame^rican Bar - 
Association, j^Maytindale-Hubbell Lav; Directory 1953J 67 -t272010)J 

Information in Bureau Files 

/sureau files, reflect that Vlilliams made application for a 
position as Cleric on December 19, 194f * File; reflects that., Vlilliams ^ 
'became impatient. Wnile waiting in the applic.ant room with a number of 
other persons and therefore presented himself to the Chi.ef Cleric* s 
Office ^^here he was interviewed. The interviewing officer stated 
Williams was undoubtedly above av.erage in intelligence but evidently 
was of the opinion that he had "pnlled a fast one'* by going through' 
the Chief Clerk's Office when he, .could not be interviewed inmiediately 
in the applicant® office. .For this reason, the recommendation was 
unfavorable. (67-272010) , 

Under date of March 2, 1949* Bureau received an 
announcement of the formation of the law partnership of Nicholas J. 

1 Chase, former associate in the, law office of Milliam' E. Le,ahy, 
Washington, D.C,, and Edward Bennett V/llliams, former associate in*, 
the firm of Hogan and Hartson. (.62-0-40652) 

- .2 - 

0 0 

During hearings held by the Subcommittee on. P.rivileges 
and Elections of the Cotaraittee on jRuies ^d Administi?ationj. IX. S. 

Senate, held during February, March and April, 1951 » 
the Maryland State Senatorial election of 1950^ Williams ajspeered 
before the Subpbmmtt.tee both as, a witness and, as counsel jfor -Jon N. 
jonkel, viho had been campaign manager for John Marshall Butler, 

I TJ. S. Senator fro® the State of Maryland. (56-9753-213) 

According to an article which appeared in the^ "Times- 
Herald,” Washington, D. C.,. December 13j 195l»- was counsel 
for Mr. and Mrs. V/illiam McWilliams during the investigation of - 
the Senate Rules Committee into crime conditions '.and charges of 
police payoffs in the District of Columbia. ( 62-7.5147 -53A) 

On September J9> 195l> Williams- appeared as counsel for 

( Martin Berkeley, a ffien^y witness before the House Committee on 
Un-American Activities, vhich was holding hearings in DOs Angeles., 
Califomia> concerning Communist infiltration into the motion picture 
industry. (100-138754-903)' , . 

s. / 

Bureau files further reflect that during May, 1952,. Robert, 
Rossen, Subject of a Secinity Matter C investigation^ was endeavor- 
ing t 6 obtaih .a passport 'from the. Department of State, ih connection 
with his attempts, to obtain a passport, he had several attorneys;, 
including Wiiliams, make contact in his behalf v/ith the Department of . 
State. Ashley j. Nicholas, Assistant Chief,. PaaspOrt Division, State 
Department, advised Williams had concurred with his reoomiAendatipn to. . 
Rossen that the best way in which he could convince the Government 
that he was' no longer a 'Coraraunisb would be to furnish the FBI with 
all infprmati on' regarding the C^omniunist party 'which he had learned 
ihile he was a member. (100-235432-51) _ 

In April, 1953 ,,. Robert. Rossen . during -the course of a^tour 
of the Bureau made reference to' newspaper' publicity concerning 
testimony' of Max Behoff before the House Committee on Un-Americah 
Activities hearings in Los Angeles. He sta.ted.he had contacted his 
.attorney, Bdward Bennett Williams> who was also Benoff’s attorney, 
during his testimony before the’ House Committee. Since -Behoff had- 
testified he had been invited to a Communist Party meeting by Rossen, 
r/illiaras reportedly told Rossen It appeared Benoff had used Rossen 
as a, scapegoat sinc.e the latter had, been jaaraed so many tiraps publicly 
^s. having been a Communist. Party member in Loa Angeles. (100-235432-69 
V/illlams also furnished information conperhihg location of his client 
Max Benoff to the Washington Pipld Office in August, 1953* (100-337007-16) 

I On July 13 , 1953> Leonard P, Walsh, past presldeat of the 
District of Columbia Bar Association apd a contact of the. Washington 
Field Office, confidentially advised that Wiiliams, a professor at. 

i; . 


Georgetovm University Law School, was regarded as a high type 
individual of excellent character who was loyal without any 
gualifications. (62-98896-3) 

On January 26, 1953» the Criminal Division furnished the 
Bureau the original of a sworn statement dated January 4, 1952, 
vfoich statement was furnished tP Edward Bennett Williams, IQOO Hill 
Building, Washington, D.C., by\John Huber of Hew York City. The 
statement Reflected the at jben dance of Owen Lattiraore at a Communist 
Party meeting. The Criminal Division advised there was no information 
available indicating the ireason for which Williams had obtained this 
statement. (100-24628-4153) 



The '^Washington Post" of March 10, 1953> reflected that 
Edward Bennett Williams vjas. attorney for Sidney Buchman, former 

1 Hollywood movie producer and'vmiter who vms then ph trial in Federal 
Court on a charge of contempt in t^iat he failed to appear before the 
House Committee on IfttAmerican Activities oh January '25 and §8, 1952', 
and this article indicated, Buchman- was an admitted former Communist 
and his. defense was that sincehe. had previously appeared before the 
Subcommittee he felt he had nothing- to add When he *was summoned to re- 
appear. .(100-74274"^A) - , 

Affiliation with Charles E. Shaver 


During the course of an invostigation iri the case .entitled 
],et al.'. Fraud. Against the Go yernment ." certain.' 


Inquiry was made concerning relationship between][^ |and Williams. 

This investigation was conducted as the result, of all egations that - 

Plo Bra tten. secretary to Vice President Barkley, and| 

'or his., law firm -were paid fees in connection .with their 

intervention with the Reconstruction Pihahc,e Corporation on behalf 
of persons or companies seeking loa ns from RPC. Investigation 
reflected that on February 1^ 1950, 1 ~ [ rented, office space from 
Nicholas J. Chase and VJilllaras. The investigation did no.t reveal any 
irregularities on the part of Williams, and the firm o f Chas-e and 
Willismis was dissolved February 1‘5, 1951, after which l~ I continued 

the same rental arrangement with Cnase that he had previousl y had wi th 



the firm of Chase and Williams. As a matter of inf prmation, [ 

pled guilty on January 5, 1953, and on P.ebruary 6, 1953, was sentenced 
to eight mont hs to tw o years and fined §1,000. The prison sentence was 
suspended and | [ was placed on probation for two years. (1|;.6 *t17642) 

Affiliation with Senator Joseph McCarthy (R. , VJisc.) 

Jon Novembor 12 and 13, 1951^ 

who had been 

held in Geneva, Switzerland, on charges of being engaged in the 

- 4 . - 

pQ^ltical intelli^Bpce service of a foreign staire to the prejadipe 
of Switzerland and of having fyaaduiently obtained services without 
payings appeared at the New. yprh Office for an interview. (Services 
obtained, consisted of use of landlady* s telephone v;ithout permission 
to cal l Senator Joseph. HcCar thy and the FBI in Washington, D, C.) 

I I advised that after his return to the United States he was inter- 

viewed by Wi lliams . who was an attorney for Senator l^cCarthy., 

According to | | VJillie'ms wanted hini to prepare a signed st atement 

( indicating ne had performed- np services for Senator McCarthy. I I 

stated iiilliaras suggested a payment of ^^,000 if he would include in 
his statement the fact that th ere had never been any contact\betX'/een . 

iSshator McCarthy and himself. | | said he gave no statement to< 

Vhlliams and had .received no money from Mm. (105-12869-11^)- 



The "Washington Star," Washington, D. C.j on June 5» 1.952# 
quoted Senator McCarthy as stating .attorney- Hidward Bennett W’illiams 
represented him in tne law suit brouent by columnist Drev; Pe^arson 
against Senator McCarthy. (121-25278) ~ 

In, , this connection,, it is' noted that Leonard P. -Walsh, 
previously mentioned ih this memorandum, as, a contact of the 
I Wasnington Field Office, -reported-pn January 13 #.1953#. tnnt Williams 
I was counsel for Senator McCarthy.' l62-988.9o-l) - 

-/it was also reported that in January, 1953# Williams wae 
seeking appointmerit to the position of U-. S. hiJtorney for thb District 
of Columbia '(62-98862-1)' and on January l5# 1953# the‘ Director noted 
> that Williama was being backed for this' position by Senator McCarthy. 

I {62r 98896-1 )j ; .. 

Counsel for Former Assi s tant Attorney General, Norman .Xittell 

During May,. 1953# a libel suit brought against columnist 
Drew Pearson t»y Norman- M. Lit tell was tried in U., S, District Court 

[ for the District of Colombia. . An allegation was received, that 
Idward B. Williams, counsel for .Littell, during the course of tM 
trial apparently was utilizing a scopy of an FBI report . An 
.administrative inquiry conducted by' the Bureau reflected thai;. former 
Attorney General McGrath on instruQ.tions of President Truman; had 
permitted Littell to have access to Depar-braen-b files.. The ropoft 
utilized in court by Williams was a copy of information contained 
in a Bureau report, wtiich copy was made, by Lit'bell during, his review' 
of the Department's, file.. The "Washington Star,," October 8, 1953# 
reflected that Littell' s libel suit, against pes^son resulted, in a 
yerdict of §50.#0D1 in favor of Littell in May, 1953# which verdict 
I was reportedly settled for an amount in excess of $4.0!, 000,. Th© 

/news article indicated -that attorney Edwar.d Bennett Williams was 
attorney for Littell in this action. ( 62-997.22 j 97-29511-# 9il.-ii.-3568) 




Oounsel for Representative Ernest King Bramblett 

V/Illiams is attorney for Representative Ernest King 
Bramblett, who is presently on triail in Ui S. District Court lor 
the District of Colutahia for raalcirig -false statements to the 
, Government in violation of Section l601> Title l3j TJ. S. Code. 
Bramblett is specifically charged vrith receiving kickbacks i'rom 
employees of his Congressional office. Tha Bureau* s investigation 
in this case was instituted as a result of information which 
appeared in Drew Pearson* s column. The trial v;hich commenced 
February 2 , 19^, is presently iit progress. (58“28i).i) 

Current Allegation 

I On February 3> Henshaw- called Mr. Nicholsi 

office and left th§ following message;. 

“Jack Anderson told me about a week ago that 
Drew Pearson has evidence to proye that 
Edward Behnett i'/illlaras is bribing juries, 
jack , said twQ men in a florist shop on 11th 
Street, were handling the jury pay-^ off s i 

“Jack did not say how Drew is going to handle 
the information. Jack* s only comment was that 
Drew could' take Ed out of circuiatioh any time 
he wanted to. “ . 

I t 

14r. Toison inquired as to whah Bureau, files shotted 
concerning VJilliaras. It was concluded, in view of the information 
previously set forth in this memorandum, that the VJiliiams to 
i-hora reference v;as made in the telephone call is identical with 
attorney Edward Bennett Williams concerning mom this memorandum 
was prepared. 





Office • uNiirf 



Mr. Tolson, 

L, B,. Nichols 

DATE; Feb. 15, ^4 




cM. Roo«- 


I talkcS.^to"^- John Henshajxr on the telephon^^ith further refereni 
to the telephone message’ 'he left foV me~ when, he called on February 3rd,' 
regarding k conversation, he had with Jack Anderson indicating, ^,t*Bfe.w?^ 
Pearson had evidence that Williams was'^'bribing juries. Bensfiaw stafe'dT 

I that the Bramhlett case was just getting underway and he passed this 
information on, primarily, so we cotdd be on guard. He stated, that he 
-did not have any additional inforn^tion; that the subject of Williams .came 
up as a Jesuit of a telephone call he had from j ack Ander son and injhe 
course of the conversation, Henshaw told' Jack AndMioh-he ^d talked to 

|who .a.t one time was a reporter, on the old Washington Herald 

and who has also represented, bond holders in various tiaisaction's,; as ^well as, 
handling other matters, He stated that in, the course of the conversation 
th| I the latter made the observation to Henshaw that his old boss,' 


meaning Drew Pearson, might Itave happen to him what he had experienced ' 
iniahother casc.- r^He vtas. referring to .the >suit~^at Douglas MacAfthur , 
brought a^nst Drew Pearson some, years ago. MacArthur^ was. represented 
by Frank Hogeih at the time and' Williams either married Frank Hogan's 
daughter or granddaughter. MacArthur withdrew his suit the day before the 
trial, however, Pearson made MacArthur .pay some $16, 000.. in legal fees , 

1 Henshaw stated incidentally that he guarded the .woman, who apparentiy Drew 
was' going to. Use as his star witness and with whom General MacArthur 
had apparentl'jr once had' ah, ,ciffair. 

Henshaw stated he was referring to Drew Pearson! s suit against 
. I Senator McCarthy, Fulton Lewis .and others; that Williams was representing 
1 Senator McCarthy and Don Surine arid it was at’ this'^point that Anderson 
•indicated they were riot worried about Williams because Pearson had the 
-goo.ds , on .Williams. .Henshaw stated that Anderson was very open in his //* 8 

discussion^, .that. Anderson had never lied to him in the past and Henshaw ^ 

just felt’‘'pe;rhaps'.a complaint had already been, made^ (Henshaw, stated that 
while, of course.,, he would not like for us to go to Pearson or' Ande.rson 

I ’ks a result of Ariderson's conversation with Henshaw, -nevertheless, if the 
chips were down, Henshaw would not mind stariding^ up and. being"' counted. 



W,- ^,..,.4,^ M--' 


7 y MAR 8 -135® 


j,. «ARil44)S« ' 



be ‘ 


Henshaw stated he' might .see Anderson; in the next few days. 

I told him. if he .did’ and if ‘he heaird anything; further, to let us know. 

Henshaw* stated.'fhaf it was hia understanding from f l and' 
he had also gotten, ^e impression from others, that. Pearson would just 
as soon/quiet do^ra, and get, out from' under /some of the legal problems •with 
which he is confronted. Hensha-v^ then stated ttot Drew's income is . just 

1 about, equalizing .his expense's and* Warren Woods recently fold Henshaw that 
Dre.w had to put a mortgage on his- farm to raise money, which Drew did- 
hot .like, - \ '• 

•Hensha'W .had absolutely no additional -ii^ormation and I frankly 

I still, .doubt fhe advisability of goin^ .to 'either "Pear son or Anderson in view 
of the .non.- specificness .of Henshaw' s stafement. 


October 26, 1957 

Mr. pdv^rd' Efennett Williams 
839' I7th Street, l^orthwest 
Washington,, D. Ci 

Dear Ed: 

1 read Vith considp^rable interest the story in 
^es^y’ s Evening Star o£ your lecture at Georgetown, I wish 
• i could have heard it. you did a great disservice, however, to 
' the FBI hi your comment tlmt "The FBImnd New York State 
continue .to tap wires In spite of the fact that the Federal courts 
have ruled them illegal. 

I, of dourse, ivould presume to speak only for the 
FBI and . unawa^ of Shy court decision which hjw ruled that 
wire taps^ are illogaDP^i’ What the courts have done is to han 

evidence secured inim w§e taps and this whole^matfer was 
colored ratM^ulfehrtte attached statement of the lafe 
Mr. Justice %&rt^, ^l^son when he waS Attorney General, 
hi the JPBI, tel^hor@ tap^re utilized only with the written 
^approval pf tfii’ Attcmney (^neral in cases involving tuternal 
-£ecurij^ or those iigrplvin^kidnapplng, * 

Si ' . ^ , I'know that you: would, want to keep this in" mind in 
\ the iuture;because it is manifesUy unfair to attribute crime td hn 
O^cjt that l&s been upheld time and time again. 

Sincerely yours^ 


'rf ^ . .. 1 1» 

Nichols ^ 


^omm , i 

^-Jlfease’ ^ 

V\ele< Room 



L. B. Nichols 

'7 t’GV 7 if'r 

. ^ cS 


^ iMRDED-a 

r - 


The , legal profession »ls too.on jthe pari of >the public asj 

obsessed'^wlth properly rights 
[and not ^enough with human 
rights, Washington lawyer 
[Edward .Bennett WllHanis 
warned ^last; night 
I ml Williams, ‘in his^mid- 
fthirtles',; already has had^ such 
clients as -the 'late Senator Jo? 
seph'McCarthy; James" R*. Hoff a 
andtFrankt Costello. Speaking 
[at the first otGeprgetown Uni-, 
verslty’s 1957 Gaston J^ectures 
last "night, he * declared the 
legal- profession is' falling down 
on^its’^job of ‘‘watch-tower of 
llberty” ;in , tlie^ United States. 

Too many;, la wipers hayeSbe- 
come obsessed * wilh ^ cases in- 
volving- property^rlghts. because 
they 'pay off -hetter^lh dollars 
and^^ esteeih;^^ Mr. Williams; de- 
clared. ^ ' 

‘Part of the trouble/’ he add? 
ed, “is^the apparent ‘fact that it 
suddenly has become de\classe 
for a: prosperous attorney^. tol 
stand before the bar and, de- 
fend a person charged with, a 
crime or one accused of dis- 

. Mr. Williams, -a graduate -of 
the Georgetown University Law 
School, used the topic ‘‘The 
Lawyerand the Tainted Client.’! 

He told/ ;5ome .500 listeners, 
.many of them^'Gebrgetown stu- 
jdehts^ that he handled the cases 
involving Hoff a, Mr. Costello, 
Confidential Magfazlhef ^ and 
[others' because they; ^ involved 
Infringements^pf Constitutional 
righjts and procedures - oh Hhei 
mart of' the; Government; 

^ He charged the;Qohgresslonal 
committee that questioned 
jHoffa .before .television; cameras 
with ‘^calling witnesses with.the 
expressed purpose^ hoV of^gath-, 
ering facts looking toward^ en- 
actment of legislation/ but; pf 
embarrassing, humiliating and 
.degrading* them,’^ ' He called^the 
committee’s actions “brazen,” 
aridfan ‘'inquisitional smbrgas- 

He defended the staking -of 
the Fifth wlt^ 
ness and dejcribed; the “auto-^ 
latic response” to such^a ste^y 

“the advent in our "system on 
jurisprudence of ‘ , guilt ^by, - sH 
lence.” ^ Iji 

-He tbld.his/Iisteners he was 
hot^' concerned; abbut^ the; guilt 
or 'innocence of Mr. 'Costello, 
when he took Hhe^,.case; but' 
agreed' to act as the. gambler’s 
attorney’' because the evidence' 
against him included wlre-Up- 
plngs.' " ’ i , 

“The FBI: and' I^ew York! 
State continue to tap wirw In 
spite of’ the fact'^that- the Fed- 
eral courts have' ruled^ them 
illegal,/ he declared, i' 

“It is no le^ a crime fwHen 
done by an.ageht/bf'the pov- 
enirhent than’' if done by[a prl- 
|vate 'citizen,” he'^sald. p 
S peaking of New York, 'he 
told the group that af recent 
case brought to llght the fact 
that a- room in^a certain prisoi? 
there, where " a prlesl"""hear5 
confessions, is- “permanently 
wired” and the warden ‘‘can 
hear everything that’s- sald^’ 
ilr. Williams then attacked 
his fellovy lawyers. 'He accused 
them df’glvlng rise to “anpthcri 
abominable ^cohcept, guilty m 
client.” * ■' f 

“Everyone, under the Con-] 
stltutlon/has' a right 'to, legal 
representation, .sb’ long' as hfl 
seekslbwithin the'lawspfjhon-:' 
esty/’uie^:said.’‘”BuV somehow 
this* hdsn’t; been > got:' across f w 
membefssbf'.my professlpn 
the general, public.” — -api 


Shursday. Ifetrch 20^ 1941 



Attorney General Robert H. Jackson today made public 
a letter to the Honorable Hatton W. Sumners, chairman of the 
House Judiciary Committee, outlining his views on the enactment 
of H. R. 2266, a bill no:v bef o^ the committee to admit in 
certain criminal prosecutions evidence obtained by wire tapping. 

The Attorney General's letter, the text of which follows, 
contains specific recommendations and proposes an amendment to the 
pending bill. 

Harch 19, 1941 

Honorable Hatton W« Sumners 
Chaiman, Coraaittee on the Judiciary 
House of Representatives 
Washington, D, C, 

dear Chairman: 

It would make the discussion of the proposed wire 
tapping legislation more clear if those who fear that the 
proposed legislation v/buld deprive them of their "right of 
privacy" would first learn Just what "right of privacy" they 
now have. 

There is no Federal statute that prohibits or 
punishes wire tapping alone. The only offense ^mder the ’ 
present law is to "intercept any communication and divulge or 
publish" the same. Any person, with no risk of penalty may 
tap telephone wires and eavesdrop on his competitor, employer, 
wortonan or others and act upon what he liears or make any use 
of it that does not involve divulging or publication, 

. To use evidence obtained by tapping for the 
protection of society against criminals often requires that 
it be divulged in open court. It is this divulging in law 
enforcement that court decisions hold to violate the statute. 

The courts do not stop people from tapping wires - no one 
has ever been or under present law could be convicted of that 
by itself, What has been stopped is the use of the evidence 
to enforce the laws against criminals. 

Many uninformed persons, and some who ought to know 
better, are thinking that these decisions protect their tele- 
I phone privacy, They do nothing of the sort. They only protect 
I those who engage in incriminating conversations from having them 
' reproduced in court. These decisions lay dovn rules of evidence. 
But since our use of this method would have as its chief purpose 
, the proof of a case against criminals, the practical effect of 
these decisions is to make v/ire tapping unavailing to law en- 
forcement officers, although still useful to those who make 
private use of it. For this reason j.t was discontinued by the 
Department of Justice, 

Let me give you an actual example of the way the 
present law works in practice: A short time ago a small 
child was kidnaped in California, There was reason to expect 
that demands v/ould be made upon the parents by telephone. If 
the' voice making such a call were recorded, preserving its 
accents, its peculiarities of speech, and its exact words, it 
would be a scientific means of identification not subject to 
the faults of hearing or of memory v/hich so often make iden- 
tification weak, It might be decisive in saving the life of 
the child, or in convicting the kidnaper, and it might be 
equally decisive in clearing an innocent person unfortunate 
enougli to bo under suspicion. 

At that point Mr, Hoover came to me for instruc- 
tions. In June 1940 the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
Second Circuit had held that the Communications Act prohibits 
use as evidence of a telephone conversation mechanically 
recorded with the consent of one party but without the knowl- 
edge and consent of the other, (United States v, Polakoff, 

112 F. (2d) 888, ) 

So neither the' distracted parents nor the United 
States Government could obtain valid evidence by recording 
a criminal telephone conversation unless the kidnaper con- 
sented , That is the state of the law at this moment, • *” 

Of course, I directed Mr, Hoover to put a recording 
device on that line. The child v/as recovered before the 
criminal reached the place from which he expected to operate, ‘ 
But even if he had callqd and v<e had .obtained scientific 
identification of him, we pould not have used it in court 
under that decision, 

I am well av/are of the dangers of unrestricted’ v/ire 
tapping, I have always maintained, and I so stated in my 
annual report, that unrestrained and uncontrolled wire tapping 
even on the part of law enforcement officers, would be intoler 
able, I have always felt that a bill to permit wire tapping 
by properly authorized government officers shouGLd be balanced 
by carefully dravm safeguards to prohibit the indiscriminate 
tapping of wires and the indiscriminate use of information 
obtained in that way. 

On the other hand, my present concern is with the 
very practical work of protecting decent citizens, and indeed 




- 3 - 

the nation itself, against criminals, spies and saboteurs. 

Such persons, under existing lav/, have one great method of 
cormunication which they may use y/ithout fear of leaving 
incriminating trails - the telephone and telegraph. If a 
criminal writes a letter he runs the risk that it v/ill fall 
into the hands of the law. If he transacts his illegal 
business in person, he may be overheard by an eavesdropper. 

If he sends a confederate to act for him, the confederate way 
betray liim. All such evidence is good in court against him. 
But so long ^s he uses the telephone or telegraph, he is 
sheltered against law enforcement officers. 

Criminals today have the free run of our communica- 
tions systems, but law enforcement officers are denied oven a 
carefully restricted power to confront the criwinal with his 
telephonic and telegraphic footprints. Unless we can use 
modern, scientific means to protect society against the 
organized criminal movements of the underworld, the public 
cannot look to its law enforcement agencies for the protection 
it has a right to expect. 

Legislation should not only make clear the rights of 
law enforcement officers and their limitations as well but 
might very wisely put an end to private or public wire tapping 
which, unless acccarapanied by divulging, is now permitted, I 
would suggest 

1. That the Department of Justice be authorized to 
obtain and use in court evidence obtained by wire tapping in 
connection with four offenses; viz, espionage, sabotage, kid- 
naping, and extortion. These are the offenses which are 
accomplished or accompanied by extensive use of the telephone, 

2. That such wire tapping be done only on the 
written authorization of the Attorney General, llis authoriza- 
tion will then have to be proven as a foundation for admission 
of any such evidence. He should also be required to keep a 
permanent record of each such authorization, I am confident 
no Attorney General wou3.d make abusive use of this power under 
such circumstances, I do not favor the search warrant pro- 
cedure which would authorize some 200 judges and 500 United 
States Commissioners to authorize wire tapping. Such procedure 
means loss of precious time, probable publicity, and filing of 
ciiarges against persons as a basis for wire tapping before 



- 4 - 

investigation is complete v/hich might easily result in great 
injury ‘to such persons. A centralized responsibility can 
easily be called in question by the Congress but you cannot 
interrogate the v/hole judiciary, 

3, Except as so authorized for law enforcement 
purposes it should be made a crime for any person, whether 
or not divulging the ccmmuni cation , to tap any v/ire, or 
install any recording or listening device thereon. This 
would be a real protection of the -right of privacy which is 
not now protected at all. 

If I can be of -further help, I v/ill be glad to 
respond to your request. 

The amendments contained in the Committee Print of 
H. R. 2266 appear satisfactory. There is also enclosed a 
proposed amendment to carry out the suggestion contained in 
the preceding paragraph, 

. Sincerely yours, 


Attorney General. 


It is suggested that the i'ollaving Section be 
added at the end of H. R. 2266; 

"Section 2, Section 605 of the 
Conr»uni cations Act of 1934, approved 
June 19, 1934 ( 48 Stat, 1103; U. S. 
Code, Title 47, 8ec. 605), is hereby 
anended by inserting the word ’or' in 
lieu of -the word 'and' between the 
words ' coraunication' and 'divulge. ' " 

stanoaro form no . 84 

i. Office Me 




tlr* Rosen 

' DATE: 11/19/57 


C, A, Evans 


By accident I ran into Clark Mollenhdff, 

Washington correspondent for the Cowles Publications, in 
the corridor of the Senate Office Building. , ^ 

In general conversation Mollenhoff advised he had ^ 
just' received information indicating that Edward Bennett 
Williams, thejfcfefshington attorney, had received lavish gifts 
from Albeiji^tna stasia, the New York racketeer vjho yms shot 
and kii!35^d!^S'st’’T^hth, He sta^eB^liat these lavish gifts 

i ^indludedxsu^ items as 15 or 20 cases of expensive liquor and 
a. chse of P^ench perfume said to be worth nearly §100 an 

^ _ Mc^ejjfio^PlTiaicrated he. didn* t know what was behind 

"these gifts ^s’lio didn*t believe Williams had* ever represented 
AfiAstasia iglJatiy l^gal -matter, but Mollenhoff advised he was 
going to inquire rfurther into this report, 

' " f ,0 *o * • 

tA ,* 


^ <u A 

a 1 - Mr. Weaso B S / 



Tele. Rooa — . 
Gandy _ 


( 7 ) ■ 


0 8NOV 26 19 CT 


' i 

13 (<0y 21 1957 


Q- GIU 15 

LaK Offices 

Edwar J B enne tt¥illi ams 

edward^bennett williams 
e6wa;?6 t.cheyfitz 


1000 Hill 

• Wasliington 6,D.C. 


November 7, j 

Mr rA 

Mr. Louis B. Nichols 

Room 5640, Federal Bureau of Investigation 
9th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D. C. 

Dear Lou: 


Thank you for your letter of October 25, I am sorry 
that you feel that I did a disservice to the FBI. I needn't 
tell you that I have great respect and admiration for that or- 

However, I feel very strongly that wire. -.tapping is 
not only an immoral invasion of the right of a citizen’s pri- 
vacy, but also a criminal invasion. The statute outlawing wire 
tapping not only imposes an interdiction on tapping and divul- 
gence, but also upon making use of any information derived there- 
by. A cursory reading of the statute demonstrates the inaccur^y 
of the second paragraph of the late Justice Jackson's letter to 
Congressman Sumners. 

My feeling has long been that if the FBI feels that 
wire tapping is an indispensable tool of law enforcement in cer- 
tain classes of cases, that it should go before the Congress in 
a forthright manner and ask for appropriate amendments to the 

I read with regret of your retirement, I am sure that 
you are well deserving of a rest after your lengthy’, devoted and 
invaluable service to the FBI. But I hated to see the Bureau 
lose you, I hope now that you have more leisure time that we can 
get together for lunch'^'or-otherwise in the near future for a lei- 
.»rel, conversation. J 


STANOARO form NOtf 04 

Office M.efm\ 






DATE, 12/17/57 


. o 





'■' ”3lsm 


On the television program ’’She Mike Wallace HtJerview” 
Saturday evening 12/14/57, ABC - W, HIKE WALUCE interviewed the 
prominent Washington, D.C. Attorney, BEWiffiD BENNETT wnilAMS. 

At the outset of the interview WALLACE lntr(^uced WILUAMS 
as the attorney who had defended such men as FRANK COSTEIIO, 

JAMES HOFFA, etc. Thereafter, a discussion was had between 
WALLACE and WILLIAMS odnoemlng legal ethics and what WILLIAMS 
would do If a person came tOv'hlm and admitted having committed 
.a crime. WALLACE asked WILUAMS why he defended such men as 
COSTELZX), etc. and WILLIAMS replied In effect that everyone was 
entitled to have his rights protected in court. 

The FBI was Introduced dnto the interview .by WALLACE 
asking WILLOtAMS questions to develop WIUJAMS' opinion concerning 
wire-tapping, WILLIAMS acknowledged that the FBI tapped wires 
with, the authority of the Attorney General in certain lypes of 
cases, hut he, WILLIAMS, was of the opinion that since the 
Communications Law specifically prohibited such, that doing so 
was in defiance of the law. WILLIAMS noted in effect that if 
wires were to be tapped such should be done legally; namely, 
by having. Congress pass a law that would permit tapping of wires 
upon the authority of a Federal Judge* 

WILLIAMS, in making reference to the Dlreotor and the 
Bureau, was i^espeotful and indicated he had the highest regard 
for the Director and hoped the Director had the same for him. 

He indicated p6 believes the- FBI to be the finest Investigative 
agency in the^orld and the finest there has ever been* 

Discreet efforts were made by this office to obtain a 
tape recording of this interview through the Director of 
Programing at ABC who is a contact apd 14 ^ established source of the 


l^Kew York (94-a) / . 



6 2 DEC 2 7 1957# 


* > 

N 1 




, rJ^ 


. 'NYO. SChi's^ Effort was unsuccessful* pfiiaarlly because WALtACE^ 
;ls a vej^; conJ^wersial figure and AEC ba^s been In ’’hot water" 
oh several o'ccasiohs because of what, tz'apspiled during the 
WAliMCE Interview. 

.. r 

Hiss !]X)WER« otir contact^ stated she had learned that the . 
only Hay to obtsin a tape recording of this interview was for' 
the Bureau to direct a letter to the "top nan" at , 

^ACB no fi^ther steps will be taken by this office to 
obtSin^ this recording. . * • 

r .. 





'• t 


Office • united stMs government 

DATE:, December 11, 1957 

FROM : M. 






^ /BelmonikfUl 

^eade ; 

Tele.yioom ^ 
HoHpiRan _ 
.ifijiMy— * — 

Reurmemo to Mr. Tolson dated 12/9/57, captioned as aoov^^^ 

The Mke Wallace Interview at 10:00 p. in. oh Saturdaiy' evening, 
December 14, 1957, will be monitored by an Agent of Crime Records Section. 

hi addition, arrangements. have been made whereby the entire 
program will be tape recorded by the Bureau. Laboratory. | . 


For information. 

cc. - Mr. Bbardman 
cc - Mr, Belmont 
cc Mr. Rosen 
cc - Mr. Parsons 
cc,- .Mr. HpRom^ 
cc<-Mr. McGuire 
CO - Mr. DeLoach 
cc - Mr. Wick 



i (iir ^ 


, 13 DEC 20 1957 

' t a u J 


67DEC30 1SB7 

m Mil 










^ Y 


'DATBT^December 1'6, 1957 

Tolson - 



flops is: 

Remymemo to yovf dated 12/11/57, captioned as^ above. 

Williams interviewed 10:00 ^p.m. , Saturday, December l4 on Mike^<J?*'^ _^ 
Wallace Interview, ABC-TV. Wallace asked hini sharp ^estions concerning the EBP s 
use of wiretapping- mid the Director’ s public statements concerning pseudo -liberals. 
why Williams defends such people as, Jiriimy Hoffa and‘ Frank Costello, he rejpUed'that 
imder our Bill of Rights, it is a. lawyer's obligation. Williams stated, that while he did 
care whether a client was guilty, it was, not up to aa.attorneY to malce a mor^ judgement 


Williams pressed admiration, for-the Director arid FBI but claimed that 
I wiretapping 4s a crime and-when the Government uses it,, it should be penalized by its 

tapping exists. 

Williams thii±s FBI a great organi|ationand feels that if wiretapping 
authority is-needed^, ’the heads of various agencies desiring this authority should-have 
the law chained; 'and'he, personally would favor such: a change in kidriaping cases and 
cases affectii^'Nation's internal security.- Wallace i^oted a portion of the* Director’ s last 
American- Legion speech concerning -pseudo-liber^s, and Williams stated, he do^es not 
feel Director t^hg about huri; Williams e35)ressed admiration for present supr^nae 
court, (kscribihg greatest of our generation. /\ 

The concluding question again concernejri Director’ s*^ American Legion 
speech and remarks: coricefning;pseu(toTHberals> andWilliams stated'he 4sb deplores 
pseudo-liber^s, /%rees witii the Director’ sttfi^ught^bnlthls-subj ect and remarked that 
while he disagreeS‘With Mr. HoWer ori' questions of law, he has Ml admirati(^for the 

Director ageocy. ' ^ RECp,EipE:[!r,92 J f_S lC-~l3 

Verbatim transcript of pfo^am^bkhg jprepared and will^be submitted ' ' • ■ • T. ,3 OE^ ^0 195? 


one. For information^ 

ail ^ 

cc - Mr. Beliriont 
cc - Mr. Rosen 
JRH:cag (7) . . 

•4iH-(Rev. n-4-S7) 



Mr. Tolson, 5744 
Mr. Boardman, 5736 
Mr. Belmont, 1742 
Mr. Mohr, 5517 \ 

Mr. Parsons, 7621 
Mr. Rosen, 5706 
Mr. Tamm, 5256 
Mr. Trotter, 4130 IB 
Mr. Sizoo, 1742 

Mr.'Nease, 5640 
Mr. McGuire, 5642 
Mr. Wick, 5634 
Mr. DeLoach, 5636 
Mr. Morgan, 5625 
zr ^ 

|Mr., Jones^236 
'Mr. Leonard, 6222 IB 
Mr.htfaikarL 7204 
M'r.t]Eamesr720 6 

-Mr. -Cla 
-Miss Gi Mr. 
-Mr. Hoi Mr. 


n , Mr. Trotter— 
-Records ciayton- 
- Pers . Ri ' Xele. Room — 
-Reading Mr. Holloman 
-Mail Ro< 

-Code Room, 4642 
-Mechanical, B-110 
-Supply Room,. B-216 
-Tour Room, 5625 
-Stop Desk, 7712 

■ Miss Rogers 

See Me ^ b 

fior Your Ipfo :- r-r — ^ — 

For appropriate Note & Return 

G. A. Nease 
Room 5640, Ext. 691 

•Jones to'Nease memorandum 




E^ard Bennett Williams, local .attorney who is actiye in.the ALrheric^ 

Civil Liberties Union, was'int'erviewe'd bh the Mike-Wallace Interview prograin at 
lOrOOp.m, onSi^rday, December 14, 1957, over ffie JI^erican Broadcasting-Company 
television network facilities. Befor e introducing Williams, Wallace annbimced 'a number 
of challenging items which wouldtbe brought out including such ^estbns why Wiilianis 
defended infamous chmacters including Fra^ CostelloJ James JUojUa and* others; why 
Williams criticized theiEBI for its -wiretapping activities; and Williamd^ reaction to a 
statement by John E(fear Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Livestigatipn, 
concerning people who tlunk the:way:WiUiams does. 

Williams wasrintroducedas the J^oiis defense attorney who had | 

"gotten off!buch.chmacters as Jimihy'Hoffa.^when it appeared certain that he would be ; 
corivicte'd,^ Jh^ sucessfi^yjdefended.Frahk.Cbstello in deportation hearings and liad^been 
the cpunsel'for thejlate;Senator Jpseph,McCarthy at the time he was^considered for 
censure by the'Senate. . ► I 


Wsdlaceia^edWilliamsdiqwjhe-couldgustify accepting cases for such, 
notbrious^in&vi^alsandusbig.his'manyd^ents'lfo .actually .'getfi^ tKem- off'scott free ’ 
wl^en it was the coiisensus of opiiiionthat they were , guilty,6f the crimes for which they 
werechmged, * 


. Williams replied that-iundey our ^^ericah-.^stein of jurisprudence a man 
is innocent.until|)pi::qvenguiity,- andtdeclar.ed/sb *by ar, jury or suitable jndicial- process. He 
said that this ri|&t^on.the;part' o0every American inyolves-m^correlatiye duty bn the part 
of those. wh6.;^ye.chosenthe;legal professionto iS^e^ard this -rightrof every citizen. 

He said it:is,ribtupto the'attorneyto-pass'^moral judgemeht-as;to the.guilt or innocence 
of his client- and lhat,the concept otguiltvshouldiinvolve^a purely legal judgement .bhsed 
upon the evidence, with^thetmoralrohsideratibmbeing left to the)ybngerice oLGod; i 

. Wallace a^edWHii^s;whether heJwoiildiaccept a case, of a man who knew ^ 
he was,gmlly‘and ad&ittedhisfguiit; to.wMch|Wiillams''replibdthatth^- manhas the same 
right to legi^‘^'other»midif theiCircumst^ces‘ justifiedtit, he would 
recommendjthathnplead^^ty andthrow^himself the-cburt. 


.Walkce;thenswentiinto'thetqne^ion.of Mretaippi^^^ and .^"ed Williams^ if 
, fie hadmobcritidizedlheilBI for emplo 3 dng-M practice. Willi^Si.dtated that it had 
inasnauchfMit;Was^a.tiblafehpf:?a:,currehi^and>e5dsting;sthtute:ofithe;Federai^Gby:ernrttent.. ; 
He.'^saidHh^;itwas.mpstamfortimate;.that'the-*FBI^^^ which- he considered^he, greatest lavv j 
enforcement organizatibnliithe^world has everr^bwh^/wouldfinddb necessary tp violate i 
the Federal. law. inorder to discharge its responsibilitiesdo {the* public-. Wiliiaias; was. 

Jones to Nease m^orandum 



asked whether he did not consider .wiretaj^ping as necessar 3 r in. some instances and 
Wallace mentioned that ^ EBI Agent had told him that “those guys who object to our 
tapping wires would be the first ones to ^scream for us to tap. telephones if their, child 
had been kidnaped." Williams’ concededd that there were instances involving the 
national defense.and when the life of an intdvidual was threatened .in which wire tapping 
might be necessary and justified but not at the e3q)ense of brea^g the law. He said 
that the ah^er was in remedial.legislatioh andthat the Bureau should be empow,ered to 
obtain a warrant.frdm a Eederal District. Judge permitting them to tap jvires. Willianis 
addedthat he has never subscribedtothe philosophy that a salutary end justifies a 
d^rading means to obtaiait. 

Wallace asked Williams' what his reaction was to a recent statement by the 
Director about ‘‘people. who think like you do. " He then read the following exderpts from 
the.Director! s American Legion speech: 

"Cert^ organizations obviously dedicate their efforts to .thwart, the 
• very;concepts of security. They vehemently oppose methods to gain 
this security and itis obvious, that their aim is to destroy it. They 
protest that they.aref^hting.for freedom,- butin reality, they seek 
.license. . They di^ort ahdmisfepreserit and;ridicule the 
.^vernment’s secwity. progrm. ... . .S^ady, the cult of.the pseudp- 
% liberal, which is. anything but liberal, continues to float about in the 
pink-tinted atmosphere of periotic irresponsibility. " 

•tyilliams replied*, that he.doubted'Very much that- Director Hoover had. 
Edward-BennettWUliams in mind wheii he made>that statement. He/pointed out that he 
had^the.greatest respecfcfor the.Director aind the work.he haH^done in the FBI. and hoped 
that theDirectbr felt the sme^wny about him. ;He.;said that he^vould be -the, first to 
challenge n*pseudo-iiberal.or-*pseudo'ranything inasmuch-as that term implied something 
falseandhypocritical-whichis-an. attitude to be. condemned; , He said, in fact, that lie 
^reed one; hundred percent with this statement of the IDirector and could not take issue 
■with it in any respect. 

Williams e3^ressed.admiration''for the;present supreme, coiirt, 
describing iias the.greatest bf our generation. 

- 3 - 

^ ^ Boay&ata, Sgtecal, Bocm, Hou&n Mofer Dee«a58f U87 

\ I -& 

I took o ec Mi ea to toSi tli* Attoit^r G«Qsnl tkii vt tod netifed 
agO(fflcirttooiattoMltoQaa8»et^toMto it 3d£to WilUw ni to 
tetmto w adtwyd Bteaap^»Hi»g^ i »it e«tof^ atskt oa tfitdtioa, «ad It 
vaa tadieatod to^ WIUUdem tstcacSod to toaia t^oa tto fBl aai 
tto D^^aitB^ as rcsafda vtoa ta99^ 1 i^atod at at ft pnposii^ to Mod I 

to toa &dito ^aUaea ofgaalieltaa tto t^totoa^ toftart t q| ooesmi 

Mta fofth oar poaitloa amtff toppti^ Tto Atttfatjr Gtstrti ttaatetod 
ttoi vt mifto alto adtltt tto Mlto WaU §£9 $mp ttol tto lattiaetiGet la tklt [ 
matter vote ortotaaUpltiaed Pfttl]test.Eoeat9ollMd tod tocafottovtd | 
bp vtotevor seabar dt Attomaya Gmral toft aacettdfd ittoittgr Oeatral 
<l<^eea» vto aectpted Frtaltet Booftftlt^a iastracttoat ate tf)^ tomsdf, 
appearotf aa4 taatSiad ad ^^s ttUt d botora a cozamittca ot I to t t 

j lastraBtloaa. Upoamy rotarQtottooCflet, IeomBu»lc^ttotaaasUcB Gt<i 
tto Attofsay Qeaaral to Mr. Tolea a it eottld to proptfijr toidlte. 

0 \ 


C- 1/ 


167 0EC,:&^J1957 



51 DEC rn957 








DATE: December 10, 1957 

AfROU : 



G. A. NEA^'^ 


Irving Ferman of the American Civil XH ^ 

called on me this Mternoon. He had ^6 things ontts mind, Mrit, he 
told me that Attorney Ed mrd BennetrWilliam s Ws appearing on. the. Mik*( 

Wallace program Satu^y evening m. cbmaection wi^ wir e tapping. He state 
that he was going to see Williams prior to. iiiis time and ^wpuid do. Ms best t 
see that Williams did notattack the Bureau and would try to get Mm‘to treat the 
subject objectively,. Ferman stated that sometime'.ago he had written aharticle 
for a Princeton University publication^t vtith tMs subject and the. 

Fourth Ainendmeiit vMchhe stated he was goirig.tb m^e available to Williams, 

I told'Mr. Ferman that I was familiar with jtM's matter and took 
occasion to'furnish to him fpr^his information the two press releases of 
January>8 ^d 15j .l950, dealing with the subject of 'Wire tapping wMch: we. have 
already furnished to one of Mike Wallace’s representatives, I likewise gave 
him a.copy of . toe Director's 1956 appropriatipris testimony. I pointed oit* to,. ) 
lum that asshe'would note toe policy under which thie Bureau functions in 
coiihection with wire tapping was formulated by President Roosevelt antf that the 
same procedure; has been followed by eveqrAttorney General up to the present * 
tirpe, If^toer told hini that, as the-Director indicated in Ms, testimony, we a 

haj^ less;to^ 90 such installations and tins fact, holds, true today. Mr, Ferman^ q 
^ s^glad'to get this information, stating he was familiar mth our .policy and he 
wanted to^assure us that he. would do his very best to make an impression on 
Williams before he appeared on toe program. 

^ Secondlyj Mr. Ferman furMshed me; a copy of Walter Millis.’;sl ^ 
pamphlet Entitled, 'Intovidual Freedom and the Common Def ense, ” wMchf as- 
jiyouknow, was sponsored by the. Fund for, the Republic, Fermah stated. he!"v^e 
ijembarrassed by- this pampMet since Millis/3S their’ board. He stated he wanted^ 

“ at\f 

his opinion- Millis has brraglit^p nothing new but, has. simply, revived tlie same 
old arguments that have come, up time, and time, again, . ' ^ / xnh 

' • RraDED-95 /t 

Mr, Ferman further .stated tha,t he has, a copy of a letter put out 
by toe. Amenc^ for: Demg^atic' Action soliciting funds .and one of their main 
arguments is toat'jhey ai^feepnly or^ization^that vigorously, opposed the Jencks 
bill. He. thought we woidd b^a^used by tMs and indicated he would send .m fi a. 
copy of this appeal; [ 

' ^ 0^20 957 

r,; Jones 


.iPffice i/kn^induM • united ^ ^ ' 




Mr. Neasa 

DATE: December l6, ;L957 



Remymenio to you' earlier toda.y captioned as,.above. 

Attached is a: verbatim transcript of captioned interview; , This 
was tape-recordedby the Bureau Laboratory Saturday night and transcribed ^ 
theCrimeRecords.Sectiontoday. ^ i 


For information; 


cc - Mr.; Boardinan 
cc - Belmont 
cc - Mr;-Rosen 





61 JAN 101958 

DECEMBER 14, 1957 All. 


Before the Mike W^Iace interview begins we present a state- 
ment by Oliver Strays (phonetic), Vice President in' charge of the television 
network of the American. Broadcasting G^mpanv concerning last weeira broad- 
cast. * 


Last Saturday night, December 7, on; this same program 
Mr, I)rew Pearson stated that Senator Kehnec^’s book, "Profiles in.Cour^e, ** 
which won the Pulitzer Prize was notwrittem by Senator Kenne<ty, but was , 
written by some other person and that Senator' Kennedy had never acknowle^ed 
this fact. ^ Vice President in charge of tha television, network of the ^American 
Broadcasting company, I wish to state that this comply has inquired into' the 
charge niade by Mr. Pearson and has satisfied itself that such charge is 
unfounded and that the book in question was written by Senator Kennec^. We, 
deeply regret this, error and feel that, it does a grave injustice to a , 

distinguished public servant and author,, to the excellent .book, he wrote' and 
j to the worthy prize he was awarded. We extend pur -^sincere apolp^es to 
1 Senator Kennedy, his publishers ^d the Pulitzer Prize committee. 

Mike W^ace (M.W,): 

Good Evening. Tonight on the eve of Bill of Rights day we shall 
interview perhaps Jthe most controversi^; lawyer in the IJnited States. He! s 
Edward Bennett Williams whose clients.have included gambling czar Frank 
Costello, union boss Jimmy Hoffa and the late Senator' Joe JMcCaorthy. Ed,, 
in a moment I-shall a^ you why you. defend such. jnen as theses why you, charge 
1 that the FBI sometimes acts illegally and I shall confront you. with, the charge 
I made by FBI Chief J. Edg^ Hoover that men; with; ideas like your own "form 
the skirmishing lines of the Soviet conspiracy ^ain^ our Nation. " M^ name is 
Mike Wallace, the cigarette is Phillijp Morris'. 



And now to our stoiy. Thirty-seven y ear old Edward,Benhett 
Williams has had a remarkable law career^ he’ s .defended Hollywood left- 
wingers and the late Senator j;oseph McCarthy. JHore, recently he saved* Frai* 
Costello from deportation, and he snatchpd Jimmy Hoffa out from imder what 



0 0 


seemed to be aii air-tight, bribery case. Mr . Williams has been, hailed by 
some as a champion. of the civil liberties which, are guaranteed us. by the BiH 
of Rights. Others fear that his philosophy of civil liberties, has'ledmore to- 
license than to liberty. 


Ed, first of all, let me ask you this if .1. may.. Why do you 
ieiidyour obviously cpnsider^le talents, to help nieitlike. Frank CpsteUo 
and Jinu^y Hoffa in their trouble ydth,the law? 

Edward Bennett Williams (E, B. W, ): 

Let nie answer that guestion apart from the personalities that 
you’ve mentioned and n^r answer to it is probably 166 years old because way 
back in, 1791 the founding fathers of this Republic, wrote the . Bill of Rights and 
annexed it to the Federal Constitution. In the-Bill.of Rights they provided every 
accused has the right to the assistance of, counsel^ They didu't. say everyone 
except Mr. Hoffa or Mr;. Costello br''everyone- except . anyone. They said 
everyone. Now, ^I>understandrights you-can*;t have Right without a 
collateral duty an.dsomePne to respect that right. 4nd.I-.fejel that the members, 
pf my profession have an',bblig^ion,or, a duty to respect; the. rights of. all acbUsed 
to counsel, so Ivsuppose that’s;the answer to ybur-qiie^ion. Let me say this to 
you. No.-matter how socially* or politically obnbxious .the’ ideas of au, individual; 
jnaybe, ho matter how unorthbdojp his* conduct or his .tonMng may be, no 
matter how. unpopular he maybe, he-has.the right to the assistance of coxmsel 
and this-was very graphically and very eloquently stated recently ty* the ' the American Bar' Association; Charles' Rhyne, in a 
wonderful speech, he made in West Virginiu.back in October. It isn’t entirely 
•my idea, it’sthe ideaotthe.Joundingifathers of tMs’ Republic undone that’s 
been enunciated a thousand times, by a thousand'layyers. in-the past few years. 


Well, that’s a reasonable statement, and worth 
considering. Letme ask you. somethin more-specific^ Ed; ^taking on the 
defense. of a client, ,do. you care whether or not he is-guilty?' 


Let me put it this way. Of cour se I do, but 1 don’t cbnceive it to. 
be the -function of an advocate or the furiction of a lawyer' to make a moral 
judgment Pn the rectitude of- an accused in a case. Fortunately; it isn’t 
e^qpected or required of lawyers to make, moral, judgments. The guilt or the 
innocence of the defendant is. determined; by the -jury. (TCW^ : Then a.fellow 
comes in and says:toyou, Ed) Excuse me;, let me J^sh that Mike if I may. 
(MiW; : ^rely) Everyone is entitled to- be.tried in, court. Qur'philosophy 
of crinunal jurisprudence-iSi;that the..Goverriment,or the;.State-must pro've the 
guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable <toubt. If they fail to do this, then 



•• *. 

we leave<the, defendant. to the majestic vengence of God if he be guilty; 
Because the basic philosophy of our crinunal jurisprudence;^;iiis far 
far better th^ 10 guilty mjem go free thaa that .1 innocent man: go; to- the 
penitentiary convicted of a crime of which he is not guilty. ask you this. A^niaacomes iato you' and says, 

Mr. Williams I want you to represent me. Look, I’m: guilty, butl.wantyoa 
to use your best efforts to getjae off. What would you , say to 


Well, let me pursue- that; Of course, if he’.s guiliy, then.ha 
should plead guilty before/the court if that! s the course of. wisdom' for him. 
(M;W.: Bv^ if he'doesh!t know) Bullet me ej^lairi thiff to you, however, he 
has the rigiilas does* everyone in; this country to have a.jury findhim gujdty 
beyond a rea^nable doubt. Because oims is a Government of rules and laws, 
not a Government of meh, and so> if the Government of the-^ate c^ot prove, 
his gpilt beyoiid a reasonable doubt then he’ s • entitled under' the sy stem to his 
liberfy. Now,* Imeanbyth^this, this doesn!tniean;titot a lawyer caaput in 
a. false- defense, it doesn’t.rmeamth^ he: canlel that defendant take the stand to* 
testify falsely, ildoesn'l me'an.that^he can* put daany.evidehce, that Isn’t founded 
on absoluterfact. He ihust coport himseif completel^ and Bm. speaking. of both 
theiawyer and the defendantjathetri^ withia the limitations of '.honesty, 
decency and integrity and no.-lawyer can go: into- a courtroom with-premises 
other than that. Howeyer', it’s basic that a<defen4ant iS'Cntitledito havehis, 
guilt proven beyond a. reasonable doubt andlet me. teH'you at, this: tibae, Mike, 
th^ many people don’t know whether they’re guilty of ’the -crinunal charges, 
that -are reveled gainst, themi Because-there are many technicalities with; 
respect to. some of the more coniplex criminal statutes federally and statewise 
» • which no laymen could hno w aboiit. pM, W. ) But if a. fellow comes in and says 
to you, Mr? Williams/ i'thinkd’m guiltyj. yes, J’nt guiltyj .but I want- to gfet 
outif i possibly can, wouldyoudendyouf be^ efforts to trying to get him out?) 
It would:dependupon the basic facts-of the* case^ of course.- I would, have, to 
advise him if he were guilty md if the State had a jcase which would demonstrate 
■ * *his guilt to go to the courtto. concede his guilt andl.wouldmake an arguinent to 
the court to ;e^end iil.^mercy to him on.the'grouhd:that.he had conceded Ms 
;guiltbefore-trial.and'had.notput'the State to the burden; of proving Ms pilt, 

On thenther hand; of'.course,/guilt-ds, a legal concept, Mike, it ismot a inorM 
concept. inthe contextln which we:.are using it;- OV^-l^ifl-see.) Andguiltas a 
legal concept‘means that,if:in a-court of competent-jurisdiction a jury finds a. 
man guilty'beyond a reasonable doubt on evidence presented ini a, court room.and 
if tKe?Statenr*the prosecution doesn!t have that' evidence,^ then; of course, the 
defendantnnder the-rules:thai;apply to.- all inenis entitled-td Ms freedom. 

0 0 

‘ f 


Let me you' this then specifically^. You, helped, Frank: Costello- 
beat the Government' s attempt to deport, him. Do you' think you did. the country 
a service byhelping.Frank Costello to stay here ih,'the: United States. 


What I think about what services I render, Mike, really aren’t 
impfortant. (M.W.: Thby’re all important in the- context of our conversation. ) 
The basic fact is this, in that case there was uncovered the fact that the. 
Government had used wiretapped evidence, in the investigation, of the .case. 

Nowl ^n't think tlwt it is terribly important to the people of this coimtrY 
whether Mr. Costello is in Italy or inthe United States' or in New'" York or in; 
the peidtentiary. It’s important to hinr and.hi^ fn^y, .but it isn!t really * 
creating a ripple on the scene of America, Jlowever; ,I tmnk it’ s.iabulously 
j important 'that wiretapping, wbich is, a crime, - not be employed by any_nrm: of 
1 the Government, I think it’s, fabulously important that; the security' of Cpn- 
versations, tdephonic innature, not be invaded by any arm of the, Govermnent 
andl tMnk when the Government doesn't play by the rulesj when it uses 
wiretaps, thatthe.Government’must;be penalizecl andthe only way the' courts 
have-foundtb penalize the ‘Government is to: ^rike ^wn the evidence which.i^ 
illegally obtained; So I thii&'that the principle which .came out, of that, case 
was of trahscdident import^ce ahdl think-wheiiever a blow- is' struck, for ah 
imjportant constitutional priiiciple.that it far ^excee'ds the sigmfic^'ce o^ the. 
individual re^t with respect to the;individui^ dderidaht, 


You, talk about wiretapping. You. say that occasiph^y the FBI 
wiretaps.illegally, acts illegaiUy. Is that correct? ^ 

Well', I haven’t said that tonight, but you’ ve said it . I believe it 
I to be the case arid my authprityfor that statement, 'Mike, ' is the r eport 'pf the. 
Attorney General of the' United Statesrwho dbhcedes that , not the present 
Attorney Generd a matter of fact eight, of the la'^ nine Attorneys General 

I of the: United Stkes, has conceded in certain cases, the FBI'sorit to 
wiretapping. Now, Tdeploretius for the simple .rea&ortthat'there is. a, statute 
which was passed in 1934' which makes it a crime* to wiretap . It,*hiakes it a 
crime for anyone to wiretap and divulge' the information that he’ s heard' dr to 
make use of the information and l tMiik dt’ s^aitr agec^when a ^rjeat’ institution like 
the FBIj andl have total^^re^ect for it andbelieve tiiatit’s thO'greatest 
irivestigatiye agency in the.-'history of the' world; but.I deplbre'the. fact, said 
I think'itls a- tr^ety- when they resort to'illegal "activitydnthe'’name of justice 
I and for the purpose of detecting crime. In other words,' I pMlosophicalty do 
not accept the tenet that a worthy objective justifies an illicit means. 

- 4 - 

m: W.: 

FBI Chief J. E(^ar Hoover dis^rees, wheirl say^he 
dis^ees with.yoa he. disagrees with this point^^of view,, and-he cites a 1949 
ruling of fbrnrer Attorney General Tom .Clark. that, the: courts prohibit.'wire- 
tapping evidence in court hut not the wiretapping itself and,'an FBI- man, told 
us, just yesterday— he said the guy who objects' to wiretappii^ is the first man. 
to want it used if his child is kidnaped and if we have to catch the kidnaper 
fast. Doesn’t that make any sense? 



It makes this*sense to jne. There is a-^atute on the books, 
v/hich makes wiretapping and the use of wiretapped information, a crime]^ a, 
crime whether the FEI doeslt,; whether' Mke'W^ace does, it or whether -Ed 
Williams or ^yone.-else does it. Now I think that if the FBI wants to tap 
wires or if any Federal agency-wants to tap ydres the Chief of the agency 

( should go; before the Congress of the United gates' and should ask* for' an, amendment 
of that statute to provide fpr wiretapping in certain, types of cases;^ maybe 
kidnaping .cases, maybe cases affecting the national seciirity. Now I for one 
would-be for such a modification of the act;, I woiild be for a mddificatipri: 
whichpermitted wiretapping in the-nationai-Security cases involvingthe national 
security df.Uwarrantwas issued out of a Feder^ court authorizing the' taps. 
•Now'whehyou say 1^. Hoover 'disagrees with me,. I' don’t imddrst^dthat he’ s 
ever sihgledme out for disagreement (M;W. :;I think I’ve* cleared'that but) I 
don!t understand he’ s singed me'out: for dsag.reement iii'the context’ in 

iwhich you ihtro^, namely^ the speech he made at The American Le^on. 
rthi^ he.'^disj^reed wth some of the things whicb-we are talking about to'night 

I -'aboutwhich I am'e3q)ressing; an opiriipn, but I .have great respect for Mr. Hoover' 

ahdl hope and thinkbe. does forme. I’m sure that he does) 



* Let’ s'talk about the Fifth, Amendment, Ed, that controversial 

amendment which iS'So frequently used in trials and^congressiori^ hearings. 

When an, alleged communist or an alleged-labor racketeer does not want to 
testify fre^ently he simply takes the Fifth,: says he dpes not want to 
incriminate himself. Dave Beck, Frank,Gostello'have;used'it many many 
times oyer. Recently, we interviewedSeriator McClellanfor our newspaper 
column andbe.toldus thisj he-said ho^one shouldhave the right to take the. 
FifthAmendment unless-he’s^wUling- to-swear that, if he-^swers' he honestly 
believes>his triithfid answer might incrinmate him. l^at db yon thiiik of that 
interpretation of the Bill? 

- 5 - 

E. B, W: I think that no. one should invoke the protection: of the ]^th 

Amendment unless he honestly believes, that .his. ansv^er paight form a link 
in the chain of incriminating evidence, 3ut that does. not . mean, Mike, that 
innocent men may not invoke the protection pf the Fifth Amendment. The 
Supreme Court has said many times, the Rfth Amendment, is designed for the 
protection of the innocent as much as. for the guilty; While 'we*re on the siib.- 
ject, let me say this, The Fifth Amendment has. come under a great deal of 
attack by congressional committees, recently but we..should never ilose5 sight 
of the fact that the. Fifth Amendment is. what differentiates our system of 
justice from the European, system of justice. Ours is. an accusatorial system 
where the accused has; the-.right to look .at .his. accus'er f acefto face. The 
European system is„an inqiiisitorial. system. This is. the basic difference, 
namely, the Fifth Amendment. 

WN: Letis.turn to another issue,, bshsed on. the. Bill of lights, the. 

First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech and the. question, of how 
muchfreedomyou think we should give people. For instance, would you as 
a; staunch defend^ of the . Constitution give cominunists the right to stand up 
in;front of the White House and advocate violent revolution, 

E.B.W:. 'WeU, I donU think, iti A important what, I woidddo^^ Itf.s ‘ 

important, ,I tliink, what, the ^upr eme^ Court of the. U. would dp. If such ^ 

speech by soap, box orator infront of*^the W^te House constituted a clear, and 
present danger to the. security of the.U^ S. , of course, jhie could be. punished 
fo:^ it under the Sniith ^ct. If on the other hand he was. simply giving an 
e3q)ositi6nbf -'a philosophical e^osition: of Mar^sm and not inciting dr exhorting 
people to violent action it would not constitute a, violation of the Bhiith Act uiider 
the.^preme Court’s. interpretation, Bo thatis how, I. have to.answ©? that 
, . hypothetical question. ^ 

M.W. Wellj the i^preme. Court, recently freedfive cbmniunist leaders, ' 

on; a rulingithai s^d a man coidd .advocate violent overthrow provided he. 
didn’t incite .outright^oient action to nchieve' his. ends, but two of the.Bhpi^6me. 
Court Justices, Justice'Black:and,^ugras.were evenmor.e extreme, they said 
that a cojtnmunist should. have the Tight even to try to incite violent revolution. 

Do you dis.^ee with that ? 

E. B. W, : My feeling on that is, this, I. think that this, decision should be. 

translated. into it’s, simplest common denominator. TTou stated it a rather. ;a 
complex way. What the. Supreme Court really said in the Yates, case', arid that 
is, the case to. which you refer, is that mere membership in the-.CiP is not a 
violation. of the.Sntith Act as-it was written inl 94 l. It said that before; a 
violation pf the Smith Act^coiH'd be perpetrated it was necessary that one: exhort 

-. 6 .- 


his fellow^ citizens, incite them to- the overthrow of the Government. That is. 

.ah inlerpretationof the.^mith Act with. which. I. agrees Xthi'nk it*s, a reasonable, 
interpretation, Tmin good company, Tm in the. comjpany of the,^eat majority' 
of the Supreme Court which is very good to me. I don’t particularly agree, 

Mike, with the concurring opinions, of the two: justices whom yon mentioned. 

M. W: Black and Douglas. 

E, .B. W: Although they .all agree in the same result as to tha five 

communists in California, 

i ' 

M^: Ed, in recent months. the Supreme, Court has handed down a 

series of controversial decisions^ communists, can;advocate revolution, FBI 
fiies.were opened in some measure to defense lawyers, -c'ongressionaljConimittees 
were curbed in their power tO' demand answers frpni witnesses. ,At least 
partiaUy because of this, Loyd Wright, the Ch^rman of ‘the Comniissipn on 
Government Security, toid us hi our newspaper' column^, he said this,, he said in 
the;nght of presentrday dangers, .1 would like, to . she. a commissiori. review the 
Constitution and its r,Am,endmentato see. whether it overemphasizes, or undet- 
emphasizes individual rights .as . against .natipnal' Security And .then hb, said it’.s 
just possible that some of pur freedoms, may be* out pf date. In just a minute 
r.d Uke you to give me your opinion of that statement hy' Loyd Wright. We! 11 
get the answer' to that question in just a' minute. ^ 


M, W: JNow then, do yon'want me to repeat the Wright statemerit,Ed . . 1 1;., 

Williams? ^ ‘ 

E. B..W: No,. I think I understand what ypu’vp said - .that Mr. Wright, I. 

have, great respect for ND:; Wright, he was. the past president of the American- 
Bar Association,, but I am very-surprised that he: made, the, statement that, you 
say he made wjtiere he says that it is. possible, that our freedoms, may 
be put of date. I hope.we neyei* see. the day when any of oim freedoms, 
out of date or passe because whenthat day comes, it woii’t be worthwhile to; 
course. ail our energies .and,all our talents into; the cold-war .against, inter- 
national communism because if oitr freedoms become put of' date, we’ll have 
yielded theolp^caUy to the phUosophy of commurusm. I think oin .frpedoms 
i as, ejqiressed in the Bill of Rights, are just as. fresh .as, tomorrow morning; t 

don’t think tliey’r.e passe,' .1 don’t think they ever will b.e, 

* « 


M. W: Perhaps. he. was.suggesting, that a, totalitarian, state. can.surprise 

us, just because, they can operate under wr^a^rmore effectively than we can. 

-7 - 



jlyerything that. we do more, or less, is out on, tlie. table and maybe he means, that 
for the pure sense of national security it is.uecessary thatwe.consciouslyj- 
self-consciously abridge, some: of our freedonas. 

E.B.W: Of is.a great paradox, Mike, to say that we should give 

up some of the freedoms that, we have cherished for' 16,6 years in the jiame of 
the fight against communism because, then we will haye'dorie. to ourselves what 
we .fear so much, from the Soviet Union; 

M» W: Ed, what do you think of the: current Supreme Court, the 

Elsenhower Supreme Court? 

E; B.W: I think itls, the Neatest court of our'.generatipn, and-Bm greatly 

*1 thrilled every .Monday when IreaU the, decisions that come out of that, court 
I in the area of civil liberties aridliuman freedoms. 

M. W: You think then that Chief Justice Warren is operating iii. the” 

finest of American traditions,.in: spite of the fact that he has. been, taken- to task; 
by some people within, our’ own Government. ' ^ 

E, B. W: Surely the' Supreme-Court has come, under attack, I think'the. 

Supreme Court has in the past couple of years, struck some, dl the great blows 
in thehistory of the Constitution. for individual liberties. and human rigKts,and 
some of those.decisioiis which you mentiohed,..avmonaent ,agO' in the context of 
the questiomabout Mr. Wright I think, are. great decisions, Xm sorry that, we 
don’t have, the time tonight to discuss. them, butit, would. be a great thing if we 
could talk about them because! think .they were characterized inaccurately. 

MiW: Ed, .1 want to-know if you, think this. shoe. fits. .Recently, FBI 

Chief J. Edgar Hoover made a speech in front of the American Legionwhich 
,1 he called the deadly, menace of pseudp-liberals;dhd',he;said. this, he. said ’‘fhe 
) pseudo-lib,eralg!ciaim:to .be. anticommunist, but they launch. attacks. against 
Cbn^essional legislation curb .commurii%-,they distortand. mis- 
represent and, ridicule the.Gpvernment security program,. Sadly'the cult of 
the,pseudo.-liberal:continueS;.to,float about in. the pink-tinted atmosphere of 
patriotic .irresponsibility”. and her concluded, by saying this, he said, ”Xreedom 
divorced from authority arid, discipline is , a frightening thing and the first step 
to total moral-degeneration.:" . 3 )o -yonfeel that any of. that, attack,, :]^d, is, you? 

- S 

E. B.W: .Are you..asking .me if T- think that .Mr. -Hoover .had iTd Williams 

.1 in mindwherihe.made that statement (M.W: No j .1 think you. khow^ I’m quite 
I ^e he did not. (M,W: .1 think you.knowthatlsmot what ! meant. ) I deplore 
pseiido-Uheralism just as much as, Mr, Hoover does. I. suppose we all deplore 




' f • . • 

pseudo anything because, pseudo anything is. hypdcrisjr.andfakery .and.wjien 
Mr. Hoover talks about pseudo-liberals .and those, who. take, positions, simply 
for the purpose, of accomplishing illicit, ends where badly motivated I ^ee. 
wholeheartedly with him, .and J don*t find anything in that statement with which 
X disagree. I subscribe todt an the way, Mike; (M. W: ^^e- con- 
vinced that J. Hdgar Hoover is just^ested in protecting our individual 
liberties as. is Edward Bennett Willianis) I certainly .am; I disagree with him on. 

I questions of law. It wo^i^ take, us, a long time to. go into- those, but I think 
J. Hoover is an outstanding American, I,have. total admiration, for him 
andfor his agency. (M.W: Thank you, Ed, very much for coming And. 
spending this, half-hour, on. the eve, of Bill of Rights Day, ) 


It’s. beeh said that the worst enemies of our civil liberties as 
guaranteedbythe Bill of Eights come not from without hwt from within. You’ve 
just heard. the word of a respected lawyer; Edward Bonnett Williams, on. this, 
issue. His word may not be the last but none of us can. afford to- ignore it. 


- 9 - 

The Bureau may be interested in reprint of cap- 
- tioped lecture delivered at Georgetown University, 
Washington, D'. C,, as a part of the Gaston Lecture 
Series, wherein speaker refers several times to the 
FBI. Article begins at page 5 in enclosed George- 
town University Altunni Magazine, May, 1958. ’ *■ 


t - 



S%OAM>rOKMNO.e4 11 

/ 'o 



t ’ u ME7inE£nn« 


^:5^LLIAMS, GASTON lecture series, 

■"" Georgetown university alumni magazine 

- /clayton - - 
'Tele. Room 
Holloman - 
j Gandy 

SiAC Abbaticchio of New Orleans forwarded his copy of the May, 1958, 
issuecof the "Georgetown University Alumni Magazine” which coritainedi-an article 
commencing- on page 5 entitled "On Civil Liberties” based on a lecture given by 
Edward Bennett Williams, the prominent Washington attorney who defended James Hoffa 
among others, - 

A review of this article reveals that Williams is opposed to the use of 
wire tapping by the FBI even under the current practice whereby the. specific approval 
of the Attorney General is obtained. He feels that all wire tapping is dllegal whether 
done by a Federal-agency or not. His observations on this topic contain nothing new 
and were all given at the, time he appeared on the, Mike Wallace interview program on, 
December 14, 195T. The Bureau has previously reviewed the complete transcript of 
that program. 

* ”* t ** 

Williams al^ indicated his support of the Supreme Court ruling In the 
jjencks case and commenteTthat Congress had hysterically rushed through a bill to 
'counteract the the Jencks case, 

' ♦ ’.O 


Williams stated that there are. in^uities in the criminal procedure and 
cited statistics fo5^956jwhereby 3l, 811 people were accused of crimes by'^e United 
States glovernment across the Nation, .’and’ 27, 65,7 persons or 90 per c.eht were convicted, 
hi the 11, 000 cases in wMch the FBI investigated, the percentage' of conyictioris was 
96. 4 per cent. (The Annual FBI Report for the FiscaUYear 195d reflects that yei^dicts 
of guilty were returned against 96. 4per cent ,of feexperspns brought to trial.-.)pWilliams 
stated toat the Government — • no litigant -- can ydhe96,per .cent of 'a-big^vqliime pf ^ ^ 
liti^tion. His point seems to be that the mere fact' that tiie Government was. suc'cessful 
in this percentage of its cases indicated per se that i^uities were iiijijply^d.*' 


1 - Boardman . . ' 

1 - Mr; B^monl % ' * (Continued nex^ageL ✓ I 

'HEHtJcs .(s'?. 



52 MAY ggfls’ 

0 9 

Jones to Nease memo 

Williams also decried, organized-assaults on the Fifth. Ameadnaeiit 
and the concept of "^Ib by silence. ’* He added that closely related to the concept 
j of **guilt by silence”*was the. concept of “guilt by client. ** He stated that, in 14 states 
prospective candidates for jobs as prosecutors, are asked "Have you, ever represented 
I an, ex-convict, one accused of Communism, a hoodlum, a racketeer?" Williams. 
h feels that this interfereswithtiie Sixth Amendment whereby eyery man accused pf 
j, crime has the right to counsel.' 


Mr* Tamm^ 
Mr, Trotter 

Tele. Room 


^ Washington, D.C> WILLIAIIS 

na ture informatio 


Sta'tefl tjy ■1‘KUMli^ that C 
attorTOv iiv Ii^liinf»ton . : 

5d. Ills source 

■“rrKdJed, ‘an 

atto^y )lV.^’iin 3 toa, D.C,, had^ln t’; .* 2:e4t^eii 
as Jwns a ‘IJay off man’* and since ohis/ ^cee^se ‘.-cWILtxA?. 
ba^alsen^fis place, ^ / >\ ’ 

^ ^^ifeOXELL described;^+’‘ o i> formation as to 

^his ^to^ion ty liis source as strictly gosf3ip^ -/add$nprr 

I pfgtt have had : a run-in v/it^t>WlLLIA!.!S. I ' 

^ I and'*'rofl: 3t<;«3i^he did not v/ant | 

nane mentioned in anyone ir “ ^ ^ 

, - 7 ^/ 

TT^OSSU, ’^^lad no additional information 

to support this so.dii ^ heard fronl 

/S-rureau Z* / / /, ^ 

2-WFO '* ^ 

<l-94r.35K '/ ^ 

EHW-:pap 7 ^a /^ / - S 

> 7 " 7 / 

AlRl&f / ' n s? 

■// r / o .<?&* p«^/ — PC . 

/ \ 

r/ ' 

Y / ./ 

r r 

CgeJUL? 1958 

"6 MjltWKatlduffiA vONWED sta^ government 

« ?. '.y 

TO J !CL u V. BO- 
A. ROto^ 

-^V"f ,#► j 

subject: ^^4/ 




ToUon . 
Boqrdmcn . 
B«lmo9t , 
Mohr . 


ton - - - - - - N 

TiU. Room ’ 

Hollomon ^ 

Gondy ^ ^ ^ 

Malcolm Anderson, Assistant Attorney General of the 

Criminal Division, came by to advise me of the following matters»^i> ^“*®''** ! 


He indicated that the Dq)artmmit was presently in the process 
of getting together the proposed l^^lation which was su^ested by the 
Director concerning organized crime. He said there w^e a number of 
biUs that had been prepared, he was trying to get them together* ahd.he 
■ would make them available when they are reacfy. He understood thaf 
they were going to be submitt^ when completed and approved as legisla- 
tion which would be sponsored by the D^artment as an administration 


He handed me his copy of Senate Bill 1867 which is dated 
February 25, 1957. He said they planned to take this bill and reintroduce 
it. It prohibits transmission of certain gambling information in interstate 
and foreign commerce by communication facilities, and for other piloses. 
He said that the bill is one aimed at the transmission of gambling in|drma- 

I tion which would be administered by the Federal Communications Commission 
in controlling the type of information which Could be disseminated over 
transmission facilities. He said that his assistants, however, have added a 
penal provision to page three of the bill. (The only copy of tttfe bill \s 
attached. ) The ad^tion is attached to page three. By putting th^^penal 
j provision in the bill, it would seem that the jurisdiction would bbN^ | 
(transferred from the Federal Communications Commissioffitb the^FB!. 

There immedktely arises the usual objections to such legislation m^much 
as itfias previods^y been considered as censorship, control of disi^^lnation 
cf Informatiw which would be freely disseminated, freedona^of the.pres^ ^ 
tko like, ^l^e^ertheless,' .this hill is being carefully ai^yzed and th^ * 
Shalysis o^^e bill and recoilimendations will be submitted to the Director. 

^ENGLOSUR Anderson me^oned that the Mack case had been completed and 
the Department had draym up a proposed indictment; had submittfid^the 
matter to U. S. Attorn^ Oliver Gasch of the Dfi^TcnSrfSsc^ * 


Eaclosures , 

" ‘ “ W 

( 9 ) 


4 1958 , ’ 




ui; ^ 


S' 3 







>- , /f »**^'^' /‘.^ •''^ * ' 
H- n -!■“%' “>^*'J->*^>' . 



Memoraadum for Mr. Boardman 

jasslstant, Troxell, had indicated that he felt the Department didn't have 
la case. Anderson states that he is unable to understand the position 
which TroxeU has taken and intoids to discuss the matter with the 
Attomey Gen'eral. He said that the fact that the Dq;>artment may want 
to tiy Ms case and use' one of its attorneys here rather than out of the 
U.S. Attom^'s Office may have a bearing on TroxeU* a view but thia 
is cmly conjecture. He said it was his feeling that they had a good case 
wd he was going to talk, to the Attorney General about it. He said that they, 
of' course, .have to consider the effect that the.^retum of an indictmoit at 
this time would have upon the hearings )^ch wiU be on concerning the 
granting of the TV chapel to the Miami station. Anderson indicated 
the Mack case is another example of influence peddling which does not 
rdlect favorably upon the administration at this time. 

Anderson handed me a letter which is attached which was 
written to him by James W. Connor, Operating Director of the St. Louis 
Crime Commission. It relates to Anderson's appearance at the Midwest 
meetli^ of the American Bar Association and indicates tMt Connor 
wished to compliment Anderson for the forthright, effective manner in 
which he rebutted Edward Bennett WiUiams\ oratory. Connor states 
that it was gratifying to see-Mr. Williams squirm and backtrack in his 
aU-out espousal of Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act. 
QHiitWftia? James W. Connor is a former Special Agent. ) 

When Anderson handed this to me he told me that he was 
really incensed at Williams' remarks and that he gave an impassioned 
talk which he felt was justiff ed and pointed out that he had had an 
opportunity to know the work of the FBI in his broad experience over 
the years and that there was no agency which could be compared with the 
FBI in its desire to protect the rights of an individual. He said among 
the things that he mentioned was the fact that the Director had been 
associated with ten Attorney Gmierals who had all uniformly ruled on the 
question of wire tapping and he felt that WiUiams would be the first to 
criticize the FBI if it did not comply with the rulings of the Attorney 

^ f 

Anderson also handed me a cq)y of a proposed legislation which 
was in rough draft form on unlawful businesses and illegal expenses. This 
deals with deductions which mi^t be made for expenses in connection 
with the conduct of any illegal business or occupation, which expenses 

Memorandam for Mr. Boardman 

otherwise be allowable if they were made in a legitimate business, 
which is attached, is also being ana^ed and being expeditiously 



- 3 - 

A? A y 


\i 0 

i\ La?iomimm 

6 : 





1 Uf. Tiitovt^^ 





%,pTnBii RBR fl5^.qnflTA?rj.flN, 
June 11-13> 195B 


- * Miss Gtndy _ 


Re my teletype June 13, 1958. 

r > 


The Criminal Law Section of captioned meeting - 
was held in the Crystal Room at the Sheraton-Jeffe^on 
Hotel in St. Louis on June 13, 1958, commencing at 
2:00 P.M. A panel comprised of Assistan^ttorney V 

Washington, D. C. attornoyr“«'*'^‘*^OTCFTI!“V/T"PETBRS6Nr'>i^ 
Director of the Chicago Crime Commission, led a discussion 
on the subject "Trends of Recent Decisions of the 
Supreme Court in the Field of Criminal Law" which was 
presided over by ARTHUR J. FREUND, attorney of St. Lovils. 

Assistant Attorney General ANDERSON opened 
the session with a brief resume' of the. facts and court 
decisions in the following cases: JEMCKS vs. United ;« 
States, WATKINS vs. United States, SWEAZY vs. NeW Hampshire 
YATES vs. United States, MALLORY vs. United States, ‘a@ c> 
TRILLING vs. United States (Circuit Court of Appeals, ^ 
District of Columbia) and VENATI vs. United States; •- 

which ANDERSON stated he added at the specific request^ 
position on any of the decisions in any of these casesf 
he simply set them out for the audience as a basis forg 
the discussion which was scheduled to follow by WILLIAMS 

EDWARD BENNETT WILLIAMS said he believes the 
present Supreme Court is the greatest of this generation 
and that he is delighted wi^^Us recent decisions as, 
a protection of civil rights, but- his delight turns tp 
dismay when -lie sees those decision Tdlipwedby waves of 

criticism and adver 

V)' 2 - Bureau (ifecrfS^l) 

^ a*, t f ,, 

siatibn de'sii 



:4- .”1 


“ Ts4r.l9btfJ". ] j: 







deolslcns, . WHIJAMS briefly expressed agreement with 
the decision in JEHCKS vs. United States on the ground 
that in no other way can the defendant get a fair 
trial. He said WATKINS vs. United States simply curbs 
the recent tendency of the Congress to overstep, largely 
for publicity purposes, its lawful rights to investigate. 
He said the MAIiLORY decision is "nothing more than a 
restatement of the decision in MC NABB vs. United States. 

WILLIAMS then paid tribute to the FBI as the 
"finest investigative organization in the history of 
the world" but stated "it has stained its otherwise 
I impeccable record" by tapping wires Illegally. He gave 
I a purported quote of the Director of March, 19^0, 

In substance that "the distrust and suspicion which 
attaches to a law enforcement agency which taps wires 
more than offsets any good which may be accomplished". 
WILLIAMS emphasized that he agreed wholeheartedly with 
this statement. WILLIAMS then quoted the Director as 
saying recently that the FBI has ninety wire taps in 
operation. He alluded to the HOPPA wire tapping case by 
I saying the Government indicted an individual for one 

I wire tap at the time the principal investigative agency 
of the Federal Government had ninety wire taps in 

Assistant Attorney General ANDERSON, at the 
conclusion of WILLIAMS remarks, requested permission 
of Section Chairman ARTHUR J. FREUND to have an opportunity 
to reply to Mr. WILLIAMS, which request was granted. 

Mr. ANDERSON fully and clearly explained the basis for 
FBI wire taps and in so doing emphasized no organization 
does more to protect civil rights than the FBI. He said 
contrary to WILLIAMS' assumption, the Supreme Court has 
not held Federal wire tapping to be illegal. Secondly, 
each FBI wire tap is placed with the explicit authority 
of the Attorney General and a long succession of Attorney 
Generals have upheld the legality of these wire taps. 

Thirdly, wire taps are being used only for national 
defense purposes. 

VIRGIL PETERSQNy former SAC, , now heading the 
Chicago Crime Commission, made a. logloiSl talk in favor 
of the proposition that civil rights are the rights of 
everyone and should be understood to include the rights 




; ^ A 

, tj 

Of the victims of crime as. vroll as those of the aoouoed. 

He cited many cases in>hioh the courts have been forced 
I to turn loose persons who are obviously guilty simpiT 
because of the technicalities of ooxirt 4 4 .~^ 

referred to the great and growing crime trend in the United 
States as evidence that it is high time to protect the 
public against the criminal. He made no mention of 
wire taps. 

At the conclusion of the addresses by panel 
members, questions were invited from the floor. While 
a number of questions were asked relating to the various 
decisions mentioned, not one question involving wire 
tapping was raised. 

There were approximately one hundred chairs in 
the meeting room and all were full vith some overflow 
on the steps leading into the room. 

Attached is an article appearing in the St. Louis 
Globe Democrat June l4, 1958, captioned "Bar Convention 
Panel Split on Wire Tapping" which reports the comments 
of WILLIAMS and the defense made by ANDERSON. 

I attended various sectional meetings during 
the two day conference and was present with SA DWIGHT J. 
DaLk at the criminal Law Section. The opening General 
Assemblv Session commenced at 9^30 A.H, , June 12, 195o» 
ar?eaturerfSiscussion on "Whether the Appellate Power 
of the Supreme Court Should Be Limited or More Expressly 
Declared". JEFFERSON B. PORDHAM, Dean of 
of Pennsylvania Law School, spoke against limiting the 
appellate power in an impassioned plea to . 

en^h alone. CHARLES J. BLOCH, a member 
Bar^d former president of the Georgia Bar Association, 
with considerable southern ordtox^ygained support 

contention that thejndloiary la att^ptlng 
to usurp the legislative powers of both the State and 
Federal Govei^ent. 

The Section of Judicial Administration met at 
2:00 P.M, on June 12, 1958, with the 

and the Laynan". w. R. . PERSONS, President, Eaorsca 
Electric Manufacturing Cosp^, was 

who naid tribute to the contribution cade by attorneys 
to big business. He called on the legal profcasica to 

- 3 - 



' 1 ^ ^ 

"make brief on inflation in America" as it is a serious 
threat to the financial welf^e of our country. Three 
representative laymen had been ;pre-seleotecl<'t6 ask 6eiM;aln 
questions of three panel/^' round out: the program* 
The panetl members consisted of LAVRESfCE N. H!DB« Justice^ 
Supreme Court of'Hissouri, DAVID, A. HO MOLLAH, Juvenile 
Judge, St. Louis Circuit Court, and H. C. HATTHES, judge, 

St. Louis Court of .Appeals* ^ 

The Section on Ju(Uolal Administration also 
met at 2:00 EM. on June 13, 1958, to discuss "Proposed 
Uniform Rules cf Evidence". ;! had the ppportunlty of 
meeting United States District Judge JOSEPH ESTES of 
Dallas, Texas, who expressed his highest regards for 
the FBI and his great admiration of the Director and 
Assistant Director QUINN TAHM. I covered very little of 
this session as I desired to be present at the Section 
of Criminal Law. 

With the exception of the remarks by Mr. WILLIAMS, 
the remainder of the meeting was of no particular 
consequence to the Bureau. 







JUN 13 1958 

[Mr. Belrnout. 

r m Mohr«i^ 






Tele. Boom — 
Mr. HoUomar 


URGENT 6-13-58 6-32 PM 






-r- ^ 








76.JUL.1 195U 



w •« 

r ^ 




■ vt 


Bureau, detailed meho concerning williams remarks,. and' brief 

7-36 PM’ OK FBI WA JG 
OK TU DISC ‘l 4 














^ ^ ^ 

SpgjjflrfiMRE recorded; according to | 

END PAGE ON^ fe; aease | 

Iand will Se broa 








10^05 PM OK' FBI WA CS 2",,. 




FD-3$ (Rev. ,12.13*5$) 





Transmit the following in ^ 


(Type in plain text or code) 





.b7C . 




Director, FBI 

: SAC, San Francisco 


ReSPrad 8 / 1 / 58 . 

(Priority or Method of Mailing) ^ 


[ Tflc. 



e; for ^3 defense of controversial figures, ’^presented a speecE^ 
befq^e the Commonwealth Club in a meeting held in the 
1 Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco, Calif., on Friday,'.. I 
•.yo/l/ 58 . Set forth hereafter are pertinent excejTpts-^of his 
. LCO^ents relating to the Director, the Bureau, said other , 

• .aspects of possible interest to the Bureau; 

• •>* 

C "Li the same year, 1957^ the^NANTI (ph) decision 
recognized that 25 years ago the CongrJs.^Vmade a crime 
iff-'this land toriag, telephone wires anar’diml^'fe the contents 
of the overheard conveFsations, or tpyraake, use -of the infor- 
mation derivediCrpSi the taps. For-3iff years th%' greatest 
investigative agehcy^in the history JC^.^herT^r.orld has sullied 
its otherwise staihle^ reputation by violating this criminal 
statute year after And I refer to the FBI. For .25 

years, the FBI^n cavalier fashion has been tapping wires in 
certa^ classdS: cases as standard investigative technique^ - 
New York and ^me^of her sister states purport to authorize 
wire taps in Sie Tace^of a Federal criminal statute outlawing 
them. And in the BENANTI (ph) decision,- by way of dictum, the 
Supreme Court of the Uhiteci States breathed a new vitality 
into the old principle that ours is a" -Government of rules and 

Bureau (AM REG) 
^Los Angeles (AM 
1 - S^ Diego (AM REG 
1 - sbi Francisco 

I / 


i I 

fiEC- 46 



' FD-SeCRov. 12.13-S$) 

. ♦ 





Transmit the following in - - 

(Type in plain text or, code) 

Via - ■ - ; ^ 

\(Priority or Method of Mailing) 




"laws and not of men. That the basic difference between the 
totalitarian system and ours is that in the totalitarian 
system the poHce are the law and in burs they are under the 
law. A difference that is dramatically symbolized by the fact 
that in Moscow they keep Lenin under glass and in Washington, 
we keep under glass the America Bill of Rights.. 

I "But notwithstanding the dictumc(ff the BENANTI (ph‘) 

I decision, the 'FBI continues to tap wires. And New York State j 

and other states continue to tap wires> showing defiance for 
the edict of the court, llhat is the. justificatibii for this 
necessity? Well, necessity has been the argument for every 
infringement of human rights since the advent of this, democracy. ! 
It*s the argument of' tyrants and the creed of slaves, said 
Mr. .William Pitt, And on May 20th of this year, the American 
people were treated to the fantastic spectacle of wa.tching I 

the Director of the EBI, for whom I personally have profound I 

admiration, respect and affection. But the American people 
watched him on May 20th on a national television hook-up 
s'tate that his agency at tha,t moment had ninety v/ire taps in 
operation^ the same day that a Federal prosecutor from his 
department went before a Jui*y in New York, and asked that jury 
to return a verdict that would send an American labor leader 
into the penitentiary for allegedly tapping one wire '. " 

(The next portion of the speech fela,tes. to his early 
e^qperiences in law practice, when he was with a large law firm 
and regularly defended large utility^, , street car, taxicab i 

companies, etc., against suits for money damages brought "by I 

little old ladies" who had' been hit crossing the street.) • J 

t" I ' ' I 


He continued that he found he was able to obtain a | 

conplete statement from the suing party, the names of his or 
her witnesses, was able to take the testimony of all of those 
witnesses and to get ^1 the relative docuraentaiy evidence, 
so "that vrtien I went into 'court, I was like the quarterback 
running out onto .the footjball field, with a diagram of the 

' - 2 - 


Special Agent Jn Charge 


• M 


Transmit the following in : ^ 

(Type in plain text or code) 

(Priority or Method of Mailing) I 


"opposition’s plays and a set of .'thein‘ signals* Before, I went 
to the 'defense of people whose liberty^ sometimes whose life, 
and always- whose reputation' were’ at, stake on the crii^hal side 
of the court, I found that none off these rules ;applied. I 
found that I cpuldn^t take any testimony before trial* Nor 
could' i for any practipal purposeb get doc^entai^ eyidence 
gerra^e to the issues* So that I went; into c.ourt standing 
beside a man whose liberty. was in jeopardy, I was flying blind* 

-I found it very ft^d to believe then and’ I find it very h^d 
to believe now, that when, thd founding fathers of tliis republic- 
.wote the hadlowed American Bill of Rights, in 1791^ "that they 
intended, to protect corporate (bankrolls^ by procedural rules 
more advantageous than thosk which protect human, libertyi I 
found it very hard jbo .believe then, and I find it 'veiy hard to 
believe now, that they intended to throw 'greater .safeguards 
aroiaid a check book than the .digni’by and freedom of the 
individual*- Last year in. the much mali^ed JENCKS case, the. 
Supreme Court took a step not a veiy long one — a very 
short conservative step in the. right direction* It said that, 
whenever a man is accused 'of a, crime, where hiS’ liberty is in 
jeopardyj and where it develops that his accuser has- macle ' 
prior inconsistent statement's written in nature, that the 
■ accused whose liberty is. in jeopardy iShould.^have the right to 
see those statements, notwithstanding the fact that some ^ 
Government clerk may have mairked them confidential* VJheh, the 
c.ourt made this decision, the hue and the cry that went up was 
so deafening that the Congress in the last days of the session 
were motivated hysterically to rush legislation; through designed 
to delimit and circumscribe the effect of this decision. 

"Pour weeks ago the Supreme Court said that ^ 

American citizen who has been- convicted of ho crimes, who has 
been indicted for no crime, who has been arrested for no crime, 
and in fact, who has been accused of none, should enjoy .his 
God given, right to freedom of- locomotion; his God given right 
to freedom tp travel* The hue and ory that went up once, again 

- 3 - 


Special Agent in Charge 


.M Per 

transmit the following in --- 

(Type in plain text or code) 

Via ^ 

(Priority or Method of Mailing) 





“from the halls of Congress was deafening, , and legislation 
was rushed on the floor once again to countervail, the decision 
of the highest court in the land. And so .it has been over the 
past five years, with* each decision out of this court in the 
^ea of human liberty and individual freedom, tnien the court 
said in tha NELSON case that there should be one standard of 
sedition in this country, not forty-eight; that the same 
standard of seditious behavior that applies in New: York should 
apply in San ^ancisco,, the Senate Judiciary Committee rushed 
forv/ard with legislation to overturn that decision and permit 
48 states to set up 48 standards ,df Americanism. When the 
jSupreme Court in the famous MALLORY decision struck, out. , at 
I dragnet arrests based upon suspicion and illegal detentions 
by the poHce; the Senate Judiciary Committee rushed forward 
with legislation to overturn, that decision. 

"Four shears ago the Chief Justice of the United States, 
said in St. Louis, Mssourl, at Washington University, that he 
■had grave d.oubts as’ to whether the American Bill of Rights, 
if offered as' a piece of legislation, could pass the Congress. 

I am. sure that today it could not. *l*m sure that it couldn’t 
get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee,. 

"i brought along with me -a document, A document , 
that came out pf the Senate. Judiciary Committee, paid for with 
your money .and mine, with the Seal of the United States Senate 
on it. It was. disseminated' for three v/eeks and hurriedly with- 
drawn in shame because it.'cohstitutes the most scurrilous 
unbridled attack un an arm of Government ,ever made by another 
responsible am of Government, I think> in our national history. 
This document ds calrled '*The Supreme Court .as an Instrument of 
Global Conquest’ put out by the Senate judiciary Committee, 
prepared by an organization kho^ only as ’SPX Research 
Associates.’ Thethfiist of this document is that the highest 
I court in this; ’land .is acting as ^ am -of the Communist Party. 

Am I Qverstalting the case,?. I think not. ’ Let me read just 

; - 4 ’ -. , 

Approved: ^ ^ - s Sent ^ M Per 

Special Agent in Charge 

Transmit the following in 

(Type in plain text or code) 


{Pj^ority^'oT Method of Mailing)- 

^ ^ , V ^ 



"lines from the document 'on S-2646* Question: Do Supreme 
Court patterns coincide with or follow established pressure 
patterns of the Comimihist global conquest by paralysis? 

Answer: Aff innative.. Question: Do recent decisions bf the 
Supreme Court follow pre-established Communist lines and 
contentions? Ansvrer: Affirmative, ^estion: Have recent 
decisions of the Supreme 'Court assumed' a pattern of ^d and 
comfort to- the enemy? Answer: A;f f irmative , 

"With what was this document, met frbiri, the American 
Bar and the. American public? The, most scurrilous docmnent 
ever put, out about the high court was met with apathy and 
indifference,’ Eoi? the Bar there, is ho excuse. For- the 
public there is the excuse of tragic ignorance of the Bill of 
Rights, Three months ago a grea.t midwe stern university con- 
ducted a poll among the. political science majors in the sophomore 
class across the West, A f om was sent to the students 
majoring in Political Science, On this fbmi was stated the 
fourteen cardinal principles- of the. 'Bill of Plights and the, 
students were asked to state whether they believed ,in them br 
not. To the dismay and chagrin of the professors, the majority 
of these College students majoring in the Social Sciences, 
said that they, did not believe in . the peaceable right of ‘ 
assembly of all Americans. They did hot believe in the ri^t 
of the accused to always be .confronted by his accuser. They 
did not believe in .the privilege against self-inchimination, 
or the principle of .double, jeopairdy., But they ail answered, 
all who were polled, that they believed in the American 1^11 
of Rights, demonstrating by their answers that they didn't know 
vfhat the American Bill of Rights really was. It wbuld tjake an 
analysis far more profound than I can assay here to: find but ; 
why the fires once blazing for freedom in the minds of American- 
youths have been so carefully banked. Well, one thing is' 
sure, and the WARREN court- has recognized this, the time has 
come to give those fires a new incandescence." 

- 5 - 

Approved: ; . / - ~ Sent 

Special Agent in Charge 

.i — M Per 

) - 



Office Memmndum 




1 / 



Mr. Tolson, 
C. D. DeLok 



DATE: .May 7, 1959 


For record purposes, .SAC Kelty of the Baltimore Office 
called at 5:00 p. m. to(ky and talked to Wick. He said the Baltimore 
Evening Sun today contains ah article captioned ?’Warf en Courl Praised” in 
which it comments on. the talk given last evening by Attorney 
Edmrd Bennett Williams before the Maryland brancb of the^ Civil- 

Liberties Union. 

According .to Kelly, the Director is mentioned in that Williams^ 
named the Director and the American Bar' Association as. being critical of the. 
Supreme Court. This is. the only mention of the' Director in the article and 


For r.edprd purposed. 





I V. Mi:. Jones 


' \ ^ f 


FD -.36 (Rev. 12 - 13 . 56 ) 

>1 *^r. Tolson*i 
CH Belmont! 
Mr. Del^oH 

Transmit the following in . 

Date: 5/9/59 


(Type in plain text or code) 


(Priority or Method of Mailing) 

j Mr. 

I Mr. Tamm .. 

I Mr. Trotter-^^y^ 
j Mr. W.C.gjj^an 
■\ Tele. RooimLL— 

I Mr. HoHom^fti— 

I Miss Gandy——.' 


jmif^SkCj BAL'PIMORE (100-13457) 

Iattacks against the Ml S 

- ^ {:\Mr.aUQle4 ^ a 


Re Telephone call, of SJ^C .lAflES J. KELLY, Baltimore, 5 A /59 and / 
re article in Baltimore Morning Sun, 5 A/ 59 > captioned, "Warren^. 
Court Praised,- ^/KRAUSHAAR Is. Honored/' * 

I who has furnished reliable information in the past.,!^ 
arBenoed; tne above referenced meeting of the Maryland Branch. ' 
,; 6 f the American Civil Liberties Up'i^n held on 5/6/59i at Friends 
\Meetlng;ii'duae, 3107 North Chaj^lss Sibreet, Baltimore. >The ./yv 
documenbhtipA data for informah<j*S ‘.report is as follows: /pC/J 



Date of Activity Date Furnished J 




ihfoMiant's report is set forth verba turn, herewith for .corapii^te 

information of the Bureau: 

"May 8 , 1959 
Baltimore, Maryland 


b7D . 

"Bie Maryland Branch of the American Civil Liberties 
Union held a meeting at the Friends Meeting House, 

“S- - Bureau (Registered Mail) 
’6 - Baltimore (100-13457) 

1 I0C IOO-I76I - ;(ACLU) ) 
Icc 100-15298- (BQBm 
Icc 100-20211- -J— 
Icc 100-20208- 

icc 100-11928- (cqminf; 

|IEC- 46 


6 G1 


it in Charge 

,M Per,. 



^ ‘V.* 


BA 100-13457 

3107 N» Charles Street, 8.30 PM, Wednesday evening, 

Kay 6, 1959, the purpose of v/hich was supposed 
to be an annual meeting to report activities 
dvffihg past year, and to give an av;ard to .Dr, OTTO 
■ \USHAAR. fiP* 

ifter a brief talk by one of the local Civil Liberties 
Union officials about integration and censorship 
legislation, in Baltimore and Maryland, a man named 
£);V/ARD BENNEOT WILLIAMS was introduced as a 
special guest speaker. MR, WILLIAMS talk consisted 
almost entirely of e:jq>ressing disapproval of the 
fact that numerous persons had exercised the right 
of free speech and had doubted the wisdom of some 
of the decisions of the Unites States Supreme 
Court. Iffi. WILLIAMS said tha? ‘the head of the 
FBI* had made a speech to an American Legion 
group which had either instigated or encouraged 
an attack by the American Legion against the Supreme 
Court. MR. WILLIAMS said that about twenty five 
years ago, a Federal law was enacted forbidding 
what is known as 'wire tapping*, and that the FBI 
has ignored this law. MR, WILLIAMS stated that 
on one occasion, at the same time that the 
Bspartraent of Justice v^as prosecuting a man in 
New York City for violating the wire tapping law, 
that 'the head of the FBI* was acknowledging that 
the FBI had been doing the very same thing, for 
which the man in New York was being prosecuted. 

MR. WILLIAMS also said that the Supreme Court had 
ruled that the FBI must disclose the identity of 
confidential informants who have aided the FBI, 
but that the FBI has refused to comply, and as 
yet have not made knovm the name of any per^;^ to 
iwhom the Supreme Court ruling would apply. 'a 
MR. WILLIAMS said the excuse given for refusing 
I to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, was that 
such disclosures v/ould jeopard jze the security of 
the United States. 

MR. WILLIAMS said that in addition to the American 
Legion, the U. S. Department of Justice, the American 
Bar Association and a number of United States 
Senators, Including members of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee had all criticized recent 
Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court, 

- 2 - 

9 % t 

BA 100-3.3457 

MR, WILLIAMS said, .established some definite rules 
regarding the activities of investigating 
committees of Congress, defining limitations 
regarding questioning of witnesses, and that 
one Senator, whom MR. WILLIAMS did not identify 
by name, had declared that Congressmen and Senators 
had the right to^ask any questions that were 
deemed necessary, without regard to what the 
Supreme Court thought about the matter. 

During his talk, MR. WILLIAMS disgressed on one 
occasion to mention thatv,JAl 4 ES HOPFA and JOHNNY 
DIO are members of tho Holy Name Society of the 
Catholic Church. !Eie audience responded with 
considerable laughter. A third man, COSIELLO, was ^ 
also stated to be a Holy Name Society member. 

Most of MR. WILLIAMS*/ references were to ‘the 
'head of the FBI*, ‘the senior Senator from 
Maryland*, or to a Senator who was a member of a 
committee, but Senator EASTLAND'S name was 
mentioned several times in regard to a Senate 
Committee either proposing or taking action which 
was displeasing to MR, WILLIAMS, 

Dr. KRAUSHAAR's talk was principally in regard to 
‘academic freedom* in that if anyone tells school 
teachers what they may not say, that responsibility 
must be accepted by the censors for what teachers 
do say. Dr. KRAUSHAAR stated that students at 
Goucher College were offered Government money to 
help pay education expenses, but that since this 
offer was qualified by a requirement that some 
affidavit be signed, that the government money was 
refused ^nd private financing was arranged. 

used a! 


7 ^ 


anda young woman named 

were present-at-this meeting. 

M^ition was made of a ‘clearing house* for ideas, 
in which the ADA),..the American Jewish Congress, 
a teachers union, and the Civil Liberties Union 
had already participated at one meeting, and it 
was stated that one or two such meetings a year Should 
be arranged for the future. 

It is noted that none of the persons mentioned above can be 
documented by Baltimore as members of a basic revolutionary 



- 3 - 





tromS^W'^AC, WFO' (62-^ 




PATE: 4/18/60 * 

Attention: H., LYNN EDWARDS., 


See Tfl^erlal 

Enclosed are four copies of a -letterhead memo 
concerning EWfARD BENNETT' WILLIAMS. This letrefhead 
memo is being furnished -in/conheAtlon with a request for 
info concerning WILLIAMS. 

The files of WO do not reflect any public - 
information concerning any direct reference as to any 
improper conduct on the. part of .WILLIAMS as' 'a, member of 
the Bari ' ' ' - 

In view of the ’prominence of WIIXIAMS, any inquiry 
to develop any information alphg these lines might be 
misinterpreted and causerembarrassment,^ 

In. view of these circumstances, 51fF0,. will, not 
seek out any information in this- regard; ihowevef , if any 
remarks are dropped which- infer that, WILLIAMS, in his “ . 
conduct as an attorney, is heing .unethical, these, .remarks , 
will be furnished to Bureau for information. 

infppiatioii as to WILLIAMS; being associated 
with the §100 plus tip girl^ remarks about CRAM, arid the. 
fact that he. was* not appearing as attorney at the Monitors 
.court action was obtained pe riodica llv in 1959 and in 1960. 
from Confidential Informatio n ! I 

I file No. TBv 


1 - IVFO 


(3) y 


18 APB 27 I960 


In Reply t PJease R^er to 




-April 18, 1960 


In 1953, it was reported 
Williams taught, at Georgetown Law School, Washington, 

D. C, He was- regardedVas a very high^-typed lawyer of ^ 
excellent character ^ highly intelligent, and loyal without 
qualifications. ^ 

tWilliams, at one time, was connected with the 
law firm of the late Frank Hogan, who was a very prominent 
Washington, D.' C., attorney,., ;' 

Williams married the granddaughter of Frank 
Hogan. Williams ’s> wife died some time -.within the past, 
year and he has not remarried. . ' 

’ - _ , i ^ 

Edward Bennett Williams was also associated; in 
the practice of law with .Nick, Chase, who is. the attorney 
representing Richard 'A. Mack, former -Coniraunications 
Commissioner, ; Washington j D.‘ C, , who w^ previously tried 
in the Federal .District Court of Washington, D, !c. , and 
which trial ended- in a, disagreement the? past siumer.. ' 

Williams; maintains his law’ office at- 829 
Seventeenth Str^t, N. W.., Washington, D.. C, , which is 
the Hill Building,, and it is reported tha-t Willies is 
the owner of this building. His residence is 5715. Beint 
Branch Road, Tulip Hills. • 

It was further reported in 1953. tha,t. Williams 
was a very active individual in Bar Asspciatibn affairs 
and ';had been to^tm^ter at the annual Bar dinner. At" 
that time,, it was reported he was seeking the position 
of United States. Attoney in Washington, D. "C. 

, 1 . > 

It was -further reported .in 1953 that Williams 
had' been teaching at Georgetown University for four pri 
.five years and was extremely well liked,.. It was stated he 
was considered to be brilliant 






y . 


Edward Bennett Williams, during the recent 
past, has represented many notorious Individuals whose 
names have appeared nationally in^the press, and he 
has gained considerable publicity in representing these 
individuals in newspapers , magazines , and other media of 

In addition, he has appeared on television ^ 
programs, which programs were of a national hookup, such, 
as "Person to Person!' and the "Mike Wallace" .show; At 
the time the Senate Cqmittee was conducting hearings 
of Dave Beck and James Riddle Hoffa, portions of the , 
testimony were televised, and on many occasions, Williams 
appeared oh the television screen in connection with 
these- hearings. 

Some of the individuals represented by Williams 
include James Riddle JBoffa, present President of the 
Teamsters Union; Dave Beck, ousted past President of the 
Teamsters Union, who Hoffa succeeded; Frank. Costello, 
racketteer from New York; Faye Emerson, ttelevision artist; 
>Seha.tor Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, how deceased; and 
Bernard Goldfine, wealthy manufacturer frran New England. 
Williams .also represents Congressman Adam Clayton Powell , 
Jr., of New York, and is presently engaged in the trial 
of Powell in New York>in connection withi allegations of 
income tax evasion on the part of the Congressman. 

With regard to-.Frank Costello, Williams is his 
attorney at the present time in comiection with 
den9.turalization proceedings against Costello, and hasl 
filed a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme 
Court to review the judgment of the United States- Court of 
V' Appeals for the Second Circuit, which had approved a 
Decree of Denaturalization issued by the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

After appe‘aring as Counsel for Dave Beck,' 
Williams thereafter became the attorney for Hoffa in 
connection with; charges of Jjribery against Hoffa, and 
y represented him in the United -States Dis,trAct Court of 

Washington, D. C., in the trial during the Summer of 1957. 

2 - 





The trial of Hoffa eSd defended by Williams/ 
resulted in the jury returning a verdict of not guilty. 

It was reported that after the Hoffa bribery trial, 

Williams was appointed General Counsel for the Teamsters 
Union at a salary of $50,000 per year. Williams is still 
Genera.1 Counsel for the Teamsters Union. , 

During the Hoffa trial, when the Government 
was presenting its case, there was testimony in connection- 
with an investigation conducted in Tallahassee, l^lorida, 
relating to a racial situation. Thereafter, in the 
•'Washington Afro-American** newspaper, a complete page 
was devoted in the paper to testimony concerning, the 
facial situation' in Tallahassee, Florida. On this, same 
p^e there appeared the picture of Williams, Hoffa, and 
'/ a woman Negro attorney frcan Calif 6rnia,stogether . The . 
"Washington Afro-American’* newspaper h^ wide distribution 
in Washington, D, C. 

Also .during the trial of Hoffa, Joe Louis j 
; ex -heavyweight champion, appeared in the court room. * 
According to reports., Joe Louis, when asked by the pfe^ss ■ 
as to why he was in the court room, stated *be happened 
V to be in Washington, D, C., and, wanted to see how his 
friend,. JIMMY HOFFA,. was doing.** _ 

It was further reported that the defense for 
Hoffa had arranged to have Joe Louis present in the 
court room during the trial of Hoffa; ' _ ' 

. The jury, in the Hoffa bribery trial as ulj:i- 

mately constituted, consisted dEmembers who in the 
majority were Negro. The. selection of the jury took 
several days and many challenges were exhausted by the 

V Williams is reported to have been associate ' 

with an individual who is described as a $100 plus tip girl 
and that he has seen this individual on several occasions'. 
It was reported that in the Fall of 1959, Williams would 
s^e this individual and that , he had'sexual intercourse' 

< with her. It w^ stated that Yfilliams (^;3 not pay for 
thefee favors, - 

- 3 - 



t • 



It was further reported that in 1959 a 
statement was made concerning Williams , in which ,he was* 
accused of trying to "buy off" Attorney Bartley C. Crum, 
who represented Godfrey P, Schmidt, ah Attorney engaged 
aS' a Monitor by the Government to clean up the Te^sters 
Union. It w^ stated that it w^ believed that. such" 
a- statement <w^ a figment of Crumbs imagination'- and that 
Williams was, too smart and shrewd to become involved in 
such a fraud. It was stated that if. Williams did such 
. a thing, he would have everything to lose and nothing, 
to gain. '< 

It was reported in the early part of 1960 that 
Williams did .not plan to defend Hof fa in ’the trial 
which had been scheduled in V/ashingtoh, D. C. , in 
February of 1960, since Williams felt that as Counsel' 
for the Teamsters Union, he should exclude himself from 
the. case. It was* indicated that this referred to- the 
suit filed by the Monitors in regard to the Teamsters 
funds and the use of" the funds by Hoffa as President of 
the .Union. 

Tb!s document contains neither 
rocommendoticns nor conclusions of 
t]’0 FI^I is t e propoity of 
thb FBI ond is < leaned *$0 your ogency; 
it and its conlenSs are not to be 
dlsbibutcd ' outside your agency. 

- 4 - 


Mr. DeLoach 
M; A. Jones 



'3f - 





_ Ji 2 ^ 4 . 





On 2-23-60, "The Washington Post” advised that the 3-6 t 60 issue of the 
paper would carry a debate concerning d^pital punishment and requested the Director 
w?ite^ article supporting the affirmative of this ismo. Whs Director declinod. The 
3-6-60 issue of ”^e Washington- Foot?* contained iwlf-p^e artlclo entitled, “A Dehate 
on the Question:, ^quld Capital Punishment Be Abotished?” Edward Bennett Williams 
pr^tot crimi^ Iyer, favored abolition of the death penalty, and Senator Keatii^’ 


of Now York handled the negative side of the debate, 
of these articles. 



The Director rc(pestcd an analysis g 



Coital punishmenf’inhuman, because ito deterrent effects are now 

^cognized as a myth;" ’’.unjust because it leaves no remedy for amisf^o'’: and, ’’unequal 

the jjoor and. the ignorant, ^ Williams utilized a 
numbwrd statistics in support of his contentions. These statistics wero checked and found f 
^ Mb^antially correct. Noting that if Is almost imhoard of for a convicted Idller to kill 
^en rely ed from prison, Williams observed that; in, any event, the 
risk of recidivism Js outweighed by the risk of executing innocent men, 

article wasteed on opinion, rather than statistical data. 
Noting ty y question of capital punisfiment often stirs either emotional or Etatistical 
aigmnent, he^ contends the death penalty cannot be considered adeduati^y in either an 
elertrically charged or coldly calcUlatod context. Ho iS against automatically exacting the 
death y alty as punishment for any prcrdefined crime, and has introduced a bill to a£)lish 

mandatory capital punishment in tho District of Columbia. 

.rnmA^u as \yeU as'mitigating circumstances shou^^ 

cW^by juy and juryln passing sentence, and suggested th^ the death penalty be 

hy tlip lory, md tha recommendattpir ^cej^oAfiy tho1<idge, DeDR. 


’ Rosea 

For the Directors information. 



op jggg 

^irpnes to DeLoach Memo 


- ' ’ ' ' 


You^rwall that oh 2-23-66, Ai Friendly, staff writer, "The 
WasMngtoh Post" advised Mr.- Wick the 3-6-60 is^e of his-paper would carry 
a deb^e, pro pd con, concerning capital, pimishment.- Friendly asked if the -Director 
.could Champion the aiUirmative and yrrite a 1> 000 to 2, 000 word atement* Friendly 
was asked-who was handling the n(^atiye side of the debate and sidestepped the 
^estion completely.- .It Was reconunended that Frimidly be told the Director cannot- 
Inject himsdf into a matter pf a legislative nhture^ The Director noted: ’’Indicate 
i cannot do this without the reason suggested as I naay publicly takp a stand on- this 
in hear future,'*' 

Page E3 of the editorial section olthe 3;6-60 Sunday issue of ’’The 
Washin^Oh Post" cwrled a half-page article (attachedf entitled: A Defe^e on tho 
Question: Shoidd Capital Punishinent be Abolished?’^ EdwJurd lBenhett Williams 
wrote ah article in favor of. abptishirig capital puhishm^tv and Senator K6nneth;Bf 
Keatlrig (R - NY) handled the h^atif.d side of ,^e debat e^ The Director note& ' 

. -ftSSsetave^omeonfi^jBetheBeVtiiite" , ■ 

I ' ' ’ ^ 

information BUnLEg RE WiLDtAhlS: . ’ 

Edward JBennett Williams, born 5^31^20^ JRartfordi Connecticuti 
received DL. B: , Georgeto^ University Daw School,in 1944 and is a.crilminal 
lawyer of national prominence.* Wittiin reCent yearsf Williams has represented 
sUch people as Senator Joseph McQartl^i Frai^ CosteUojt Aldol^ Icardi and^ of 
course; Istheattomey for Janies. Riddle HQffa and. the Teamsters Unloni * 


KeimethBi Keatingi Republican Senator •from.Nfew York; born 
5-18^00; Umaj ReWtqrk, obtained LL^B.* from Harvard BaW School in 1923* 

He was elected to 80th throt^h 85th Congresses and on ll'«'4:^58i was elected, to 
the $enate'to occupy seat formerly Senator Ives* We have had very cordial 
relations with. Keating since 1947^ and he has supported nmnerous l^slatioh 
beneficial to the Bureau such as-the liberalised r^rehimit bill and the bill 
to protect the FBPs name froba commercial es^loitation* However, itis noted that 
during the New York Post Series last October, Keating was quoted as saying that, 
he invited the Director to dinner but the Director said he was too busy. Keating .said 
the Director Was a rather aloof person, a little stHf and formal, and hot the sort of 
« man who Would t inspire intimacy, hi another article, Keating said the Director 
would have strong influence on legislation and that,^yone would hesitate to enter 
into conflict with him. He stated if anyone stood up in Congress, to .attack the 
Director, he would, get it from both sides. • 


Jones to Detoach Memo 


TUe article 1}y WiUianiS sujpported aLotiUoti of caplj^al punishment. 

The folio^g is a summary and analysis of jpertinent^ statements in 'WiUihms*' , 

artieie, as requested by the Direct 

Y/iliiams termed capita punishment Minhuman because its deterrent, 
effects are nowrccog^ed as,a?nythji* ”uhju^ becmiseit leaves iio remec^ for -a 
mist^e;"^ and, "unequal because; it is:ci^led almost exciusiymy Of the poor and the 
ignorant. ■* ' . ’ ' ' . 

Statementt (a) The District df Golumbia, is the only jurisdictiomin* 
the Uhited.St^es which" still has maiit^pry capital punishment for fir^-degree jmilrder. • 
(b) The crlriUhal homici& rate In the District is. as high or higher than all other 
American cities of comparable sizer. , 

Commentr ^fai The District ls; the/pnly jurisdictioh in the county v/hich 
-stiil has the mandatoiy deMh pea^fy for first-d^ree -murder., ‘(b) Vt^^ashin^pn is the ‘ 
lOth laj^^inthe Rhited^atejs. .In j958, W^Mhgtprfs mhrder rate.'was 9. 0. J 
Three cities ydth.popidaUohs larger thamWadW had higher murder rates: 

Baltimore • io. 2j Louis,- 10. 0; and Houston -- |3.Ti. Y/ashin^on had ahigher 
murder rate than the other 6 cities '^th, larger popuiatjohs. There are 40 cities "with /• 
poMntions. oyer ,250, 000. Mne have idgher murder rates than Y/ashington> and 36 
are lower.:, , * ■ ■ - , 

- Statement: Nine. states^haVe abolished capital, punishment, and latest, 

FBI statistics indicate that nip^ of these .^ates jhnd a Ipv^er Jhbmidde r^e than, 
neighboring, st^es,whichret^n the deathpenalty. . 

Commenti iTin'e states, Alaska, I}elaware, ;Hawdi, Maine, Minnesota# 
Wisconsin, Mchigan, North Dakoth and Rhode. Islhnd, have abbiished capital punish- 
ment. FBLstatisttcs- do reflect that these 'htates.had ;^loy^er )hurder .rate*|n: 1958. ' 
thkn neighboring states, v ' ^ ^ " 

Statement: Murder is the Offense mo)^ often punished by execution. ' 

Comment:. From; 19$Q to i059, a total of . .8, 603 persons were executed 
under civil authority In the UMfed ^ateS» Of this flgure> 3, 179 -were executedipr 
murder, 426.for .rape aftdfll for other offenses. . . 

It is notedth^WiiliSms considers murder ’’almciSt. always" a crime " 
of pdssioh and impulse. • ' 

r / c» • 



"I < 

- / 


Jones to DeLoach Memo 

Stat^entt On 8-12-53, WiilieXee Stewwt killed an ^derly grocer; 
during a holdup in the District oi Columbia. On . 2 -I 676 O, the Court of Appeald 
, uphdd his convictiott^or hrst-degree mUrder l^jr a S Yote^ Twicd b^ore he 
had been convicted .and Md.conyictibn, had be^h revmrjsed. 

, * Comment: Stewart was charged in. 1953 Ydth first-degree murder 

but his death sentence, after StrMsj Vas upheld in B^ebruary^ 1960, by the United 
S,tates Cburi of Appeals. 

. . , Statement: The United States Attorney for the District 'of Columbia 

now advocates abolition of ihandatory capital punishment becausb juries are reluctant 
to con^ct and a Court of Appeals reluctmit id affirm imthese cadds, He points out 
that from July, i9$3, to date,df 104 defendants who w^e.todicted in the .DiEtrict for 
iirst-d^ree murder j only oiie was electrocuted. ... 

Comment; On 2-2.9-60, United Stmes^Attorney Oliver Gasch, . • 

District of Columbia) testified bmpre a Senate subcommittee and made the above 
.. statements altr^uted to. him by ^iiliamS.. . ^ r , ^ 

- Statemoiti In 1956i. only '48 prisoners were electrocuted, under 
civU author!^ in the.United States* - ^ 

' Cominentt^ This is correct* . : , . 

. [ ifotingtoit.isalmostunhearddf mr.Udonyicted^ier tokiii;again 

^ r after he has been released Irqhf prison, Williams observed thaim.any, event, the , 

. ri8kofrecl(ftvmmis6Utwel^edby.the.riskof executii^;lnnoc.ent meni ^ ' 

. Statenjenh Hotlng that the death penalty is indefensible today because. 

itJiasb^pme so discriminatory,- Williams pbs.erved tl^ in 1958/ the pa^ori^ of 
the deM^m exited to tids cOuntiy werie indigent Negrpesj 

- ' Commit: .Of toe- dS perSons m^ecuted in the IJnited States in 1958, 

^Owefe wMtei 2 y were H^rdandpne was ofanpther race. 

The Middle 

Ages, WiUiams concluded his article by'urgtog clvili 2 led- society,, in its for ward- 
concept of Ortoie and punishment, to discard the gallpws, the gas' chamber and the 
electric chair. . ' ^ . J 

- 4 -- 

- p 

jJonfes |o iDeLoach Memo ' _ ‘ 

ARTICLE BY KEATINGi. .. .... . ^ J . ... . / 

"■“ • • guiator Keatl^^s article, -which, favors retention of capital punishment,, 

is based ondpinipn^ rather than, statistic^ \data<^ ;)9e notes that discussions of capital 
punishotent r^ely dispassionate. . Sb observes'that highly emotional reactions , 
to the death penal^ are^based on the.lact that cases which present the possibiiitY of 
capitk puQishin^t are senshtioiihl and sordid, and dra^h tremenibus amount Of 
attention. Deep feelings of sorrow and hate are stirred, as by a play, and this is 
not the setting in wHch Reason flourishes. 

* *' ‘ I 

fle observes that: a different approach in discussing this; topic is to ‘ 
redaOe the argument to statistical tables, but ^scounts ibis, noting one i^glit 
conclude from some t^lesihat murder, increases where the death penalty prevails, 
and decreases where it does not existi « Keating contends capital piudshmeht cannot 
be considered adeo^ately in- either an electrically charged or a coldly calculated 
context. ' ' ' - . , ‘ ‘ i 

Keating is against taUtonaatically ejcacting the death penalty- 
pUnisimieht for any pre-^de|ined. crime. He fedlS capital p^shmbnt must be retained 
for those, cases , in wldch the r eflective moral- jud^ent of the community wpuldbe, 
shockedty SiW lesserpenalty, and for those cases in which no other sanction is . 
possible. ' in this connection. Keying .has introduced a biU to abolish maiid^ory ' ' 
capital Rttoishment in the pi^rict of Columbia. He is against arbitrary punishment 
Where the death penalty is invohod. , / 

He maintdns. that;. aggravaflng as well as. mitigating circumstances 
should be considered by the Jut^e and jury in passing science and cites the following' 
mpiples:, aconvict under fife sentence Mils a prison |i^p.dtryihg to escape; a 
mur^r that is committed for hirej and amurdOr bf especially heinous, atfociohs, 
or crud nature, mahife^g exceptional depravity. 

Concluding, Keading observes that pur jU(%;e and, jury system .bettfer 
‘ reflects the community conscienOe ip murder triais than d)%^ther lawyers for the 
prosecution and defense, ^th of;wh6m are imbued with> passionifpr their cause. . ' 
He recommends th^.discretion. be employ edM Consideration of papital punishment, 
and th^^e death penalty be unanimously r ecoinmended by the Jury, and the 
. recomneep^on accepted by thS juifee, before Such' sentmipbisjpassed. 





TO , Ut, DeLoach 
noM : M. A. Jone^^ 


DATES I^BsaaSerlS^ 1959 

IS UlWl 







conshtutionAl rights subc 

DECEMBER 15, 1959 


i ■' i ■ .1. , • ^ 

ft A » t purposes of synop^, references to Director and JH a^^oints 

j considered high lights will be Included hereafter. Only Senators Bfsasszs CD - 
l^d Wiley (R - Wis. ) present. First witness^ Harold K, Lipset, prTxsss SEreatigator 
San Francisco, California, made no referee to FBI. Copy of hi&ascsssaient ^ 
attached. Second witness Edward BenneiHrilUamfl. Washington. D c attorney 
had no prepared statement. Williams statea tnere is grave consfc 3 icsa<. question^ 
with regard- to Fourth Amendment In connection with wiretapping, despite 

law passed by Congress 25 years ago against wiretapping, FBI has a^jsd wires for 
25 years. Stated he does not intend to impugn motives of FBI siacre ^*^3 certain it is 
done In good faith and FBI has laudable motives. Williams said he Tts iiatarbed by 
remark Director made on television program although he has greas respect for ability ' 
and integrity of Director; stated Director said on television program FEIsad.90 wire- ^ 
taps in operation at the time. Williams stated on the same day a jary was | « 

retonlng a verdict in connection with a criminal case of wiretapprg it York State. !| 
Williams stated that a couple of years ago he lectured at Georgetown SiifTersity on 
wiretapping voicing objections to practice and thereafter received frem former \J^! 
FBI Assistant to the Director L. B. Nichols wherein Nichols set izsti peliej of Depart- I 
ment and FBI regarding wiretaps being used in connection with idesrsl ©ecarity s 

sabotage, espionage, kidnaping, etc. Williams said attached to letter was copy c* 

of opinion by former Justice Jackson dated 3/19/41. Williams dts^roed with Justice -j 
Jackson’s opinion that no violation of wiretapping statute occurs l=^::xmatioa ® 

fflimlged or used for benefit of Interceptor or others. Williams sds&d m Department £ 
had case of myopia in this regard since he is certain FBI does cst Jifecert ^ 

messages but that FBI intends to nse such messages. Williams IScpmrtment < 

is in uneasy position, of being unable to prosecute wiretappers sincefepsrtriSdrLt vlclate'^ 
statute itself, addlhg that only 3 convictions obtained for many years scuiCsh T can- E 
petioas obtained in recent years, the latter referred to Ity him zs a ’’’flrrxy" cf con- *^| 
fvlctioa$. "S^iltiams referred to Hew York State as frequent violator d 
stated that wiretapping. is not a m^ter fpr states to handle but is st ^ 


[Fedcralaathorlties. Williams added that former Attorney General Ercmrca and 

S'- - 

1 - Mr. I^tiOach, 
1 - Mr. ibscat^* 
1-1, tr. 

GEMjm . . 

'MN cpc^ 

46 JAN 

JCcfetis^d btyn^drs^^ 

M* A. Jones to Mr. DeLosch meniorsndiini 

Attorney General Rogers have said wiretapping necessary to cope with ^ies 
sutversives and saboteurs and said Departments statements would be more cogent 
if Department could say it was not violating the law itself. WilUams then quoted 
Director as saying in 1929 that wiretapping is archaic and inefficient practice and 
definite handicap to law enforcement. Williams stated Director said in 1940 that 
dlscremt and suspicion caused by wiretapping more than offset any value wMch 
jlaw enforcement agency might obtain from such a practice. Williams stated he has 
wnstructive suggestions relative to wiretapping and said if Department does have 
m resort to ydretapping in cases of subversion, espionage and treason, then he 
belteves following points should be considered: (1) wiretapping should be construed 
as wing within the purview of the Fourth Amendment and that if Federal authorities 
need to resort to wiretapping they should obtain a warrant; (2) prepare a statute 
wUneating when wiretapping can be used, for Instance in connection with sabotage 
reason, espionage, etc. ; (3) warrants to be issued only with the authority of the 
Attorney General; (4) the Supreme Court to name a judge in each Federal district 
to authorize wiretapping warrants, a move which would prevent judge shopping; 

(6) require affidavits that a particular telephone is being used for a subversive purpose 
auid a ^rant be issued to utilize a wiretap on that particular telephone for a limited 
me of 90 days; (6) require the Attorney General every year to reveal the number of 
tops which have been used during the preceding year and the results, convictions, etc. 
Williams stated he does not believe kidnaping should be included under authorized 
» wetapping. He said wiretapping should be confined to Federal law enforcement 
officers and not to local law enforcement officers and then only with authority of 
Attorney General. Upset demonstrated electronic listening equipment for Subcom- 
, mittee. Attached also is Subcommittee’s press release of 12/9/59 on hearing. 

Witnesses tomorrow (12/16/59) will be Paul WilUams, former U. S. Attorney for 
1 „ District of New York, and Harris Steinberg, defense counsel from the State 

j Ijoi Nsw York. Sonator Hennings ordered Subcommittee counsel to determine "v^tmt 

employees have miniphones, a small recording device available throufdi 

[^Government employees have miniphones, 

For information. 

recording device available through 
rt Services Administration. 


u- ■■ V'*** ^ 




;M>A'. Joneato Mr. DeLoach.memDranduin 




A i 1 ...nffu'i on Dsccmbar 15, 1959, at 10 j 30 a,in« , — 

rr^«trxrr ■ 

A- ^ of his statement before the Subcommittee is attached. 

The second witness was Edward Bennett WilUams, Washington, 

D. C. , attorney, who had no prepared statement. 

WilUams stated that regarctog tapping ^ere is 

constitutional question with reg^d gg^pj^ggg^ a statute making it a crime 

25 years aso. ^st to toe 

to tap wires and (Uvulge the ^ ^ ^ 1954 this crime was a felony 

messages for one's or™ use H^ed U»mm « that 

and in 1954 Coi^ress saw to ramnant and law enforcement officers 

statute passed by CongrMS ®8^‘ ^ motises of the FBI since 


At IMS uotot a pf'Ce" Hennings stated that the Attorney General 
ytrote him relXet Ke^ent of JusUce's stand on wiretapping and that 
he wanted to Include this letter in the record. 

Willlanis then stated that he was disturbed by a remMk wW^ was 

M. A. Jones to Mr. DeLoach memorandom 

He stated, however, vdiah disturbed him was the fact that Mr. Hoover stated 
that the, FBI had 90 wiretaps in operation at the time of his television appear- 
ance. Williams added that the paradoxical part of this situation was that on 
that very same day a New York Jury had been ordered to return a verdict 
in connection with a criminal case of wiretapping being tried in the State of 

Williams stated that a couple of years ago he made a lecture 
at Georgetown University on the subject of wiretapping at which time he voiced 
his objections to the practice and stated that immediately thereafter he received 
a letter from former FBI Assistant to the Director Louis B. Nichols, whom 
he is very fortunate to call among his friends, and that Mr. Nichols took issue 
with his lecture before the Georgetown students. Williams thereupon read 
Mi. Nichold letter wherein Mr. Nichols set forth the policy of the Department 
of Justice and the FBI relative to wiretaps and their use in matters such as those 
of internal security, sabotage, espionage, kidnapping, etc. Williams stated 
that attached to Mr. Nicholi^ letter was a copy of a document containii^ an 
opinion by former Justice Jackson. Williams stated that he certainly did not 
want to appear arrogant but that in his opinion. Justice Jackson’s opinion was 
demonstrably in error. He stated this opinion was dated March 19, 1941. The 
portion of Justice Jackson’s opinion with which Mr. Williams disagreed, was 
in substance, that no violation of the wiretapping statute occurred unless the 
substance of the communication was divulged or used for the benefit of the 
interceptor or others. 

Williams stated that as far as he is concerned, the Department 
of Justice ks a case of myopia with regard to this stand since he is certain 
that the FBI does not idly Intercept such mess^es bat that the FBI intends to 
use such interceptions for some purpose. 

During Mr. Williams’ comments relative to Justice Jackson’s 
cplnica. Senator Hcanings pointed out to him and for the record tho opinion 
by Justice Jackson was rendored when ho was Attomoy Gmioral of Cio tJnit^ 
f^tss and not as a member c]|tho U. S. Supremo Court. Williams readily 
fijrcod to this. 

Williams went ca to cay that there have been rampant vlolationo 
cf the T?irct£:;pin 3 etatet® for 25 years and that tho Department dl Jastiao ia in 
the creasy pccitiea cf boinj unable^ to presoszto for &is erto cinso the 

^ r 

> ;« 

0 0 

Harking here not a FOIA redaction 

M. A. Jones to Mr. Deli>ach memorandtim 

Department of Justice is guilty of violating the statute itself.. Williams stated 
that for many years there vrere only three convictions under the wiretapping 
statute and that in recent years there has been a "flurry** of convictions, seven 
in number. Senator Heunings stated tiiat Mr. Williams was overly generous 
in referring to seven convictions as a flurry, and Williams replied facetiously 
that if he is to err he prefers to err on side of generosity* 

Williams stated that it is not difficti to understand vdiy a 
Senate Subcommittee finds it necessary to discuss amendnients to wiretapping 
statutes when local and Federal law enforcement agencies axo yiolatir^ 

Federal statute. He went on to say that he saw the Bt^iral wircti^ing 
violated in this very rcca Canens Hccm in which this hearing was being held) 
during the labor racketeering hearings. Senator Hennings asked if objections 
were made to the playing of recordings during the hearings, and Williams stated 
they most assuredly were but that they were overruled by the chair. Senator 
Hennings questioned whether the overruling was made by Senator McClellan 
and Williams replied that Senator McClellan was in the chair. Williams then 

made reference to the U. S. Supreme Court decision - 4 . in the 

Benanti v. U. S. case and stated that, according to the law, to consummate 
the crime of wiretapping, wiretapping must occur and the intercepted message 
must be used for one*s own benefit or must be divulged. 

Williams stated that wiretapping is going on on a state level all the 
time, particularly in New York State. He stated that Intrastate interception is 
a violation of the Federal statute and that governing authorities of New York 
State are as much out of line as the Governor of Arkansas is in preventing school 
integration which has been decreed as the law of the land. He stated that private 
citizens in New York do not have security from invasion of privacy when wire- 
taps are authorized *'under the guise of warrants. ** Williams then made reference 
to the U. S. Supreme Court case Rathbun v. U. S. of December 9, 1957, in which 
the Supreme Court said that Congress did not mean to allow state authorities to 
circumvent Federal law. 

Williams stated that he did not believe that the question of allcwfcg 
wiretapping was a state matter; he stated Instead it is a matter for Federal 
authorities and that the Fourth Amendment should protect against wiretapping; 

Williams stated that former Attorney General Brownell and 
present Attorney General Rogers have both said that wiretapping la necessary to 
cepo with £pis3, Subversives and saboteurs. He said that tha Department* s 


•V -!f 


M. A. Jones to Mr. DelMch 

Statemests waUba more cogent U the Department could tmy Uat ?®‘ 
SSSaetonhid> uphold. 

^rtLiHi^A to flufltfl Director J. Edgar Hoover and s^d that m 1928'A». Hoover 

Zi tol)8bS? ^ wlrel^ to 

a definite handicap to law enforcement. Williams then said^t In J 
Director said In a release made’^through the Department of Justice that 
Sscredit and suspiclon causedby wiretapping more than offset any value vdiich 
a law enforcement agency might obtain from such a practice. 

Senator Hennings at this point obtained a letter AJtoraey 
General Rogers, nhlch he had mentoned 

rAfinonae to a letter of his to Mr. Bogers dated August 10 , 1989 . senator 
HeiSngs then read this letter tor the record setting torft General 

Rogers' riews on the necessity of wiretapping in connection with to security 

of the country. 

Senator Wiley then injected the question that doesn’t toe 

interest and the safety of the country warrant toe use ^^Ltor 

wiretaoDine be used for such purposes as a court should authorize it. Sector 
Wiley SdtLTS^^^^ theTatety of toe State of New York be insured by 

wiretapping. ^ 

Williams replied that he did not come to ^ * i*. 

dcstructionist and that he has a constructive suggestion. He stated it w^ 
deplorable that Federal agencies are violating toe law of toe land 
Srtocnt of Justice dots have to resort to ^retopping in cases of ^version, 
esDionage and treason, then he beUeves the following am^dments to tlic 

ta^ir^ itatute should be considered: (1) ^ f^^jJtS^^^thoriti^ 

bc4 within the purview of too Fourth Amendment and that 
nrl^to resort to wiretapping they should obtain a warrant; (2) P^epn^o a statute 
d«llncatin«^ w’'sn wiretapping can be used, for instance in conneegon ^to sabotagp, 
toc^nf e^nage, etc^ftwarrants to be issued only with f ' 

Attomov Gcroral: (41 the Supreme Court to name a judge in ca^ Federal 

^rkVwirctaH*« warrants, a move ^^cb otuM pro\^'Ja^o 

SXVt^qclra atnculrito that a parUcular tolcpbone is being 

saoKa-3» w « r^rrant bo issued to utilize a wiretap on that particular 

time of £0 dLys; (6) require too Attorney Gc^ every year 

^^ms irSr of Upa tAlch bavo been used daring the preceding year and . 

the results, coavictlcnSy etc. 

- 5 - 

0 9 

>1. A. Jones to Mr. J}8Loach iaemoraadum 

WUUams stated that, as the Subcommittee knev, law enforce- 
ment officers cannot obtain a warrant to search througb one’s house for 
evidrace and that warrants could be obtained only for fruits of crinles, weapons 
with which to effect escape, contraband. He stated that he believed' that a 
warrant for a wiretap should be obtained only if it can be said that a particular 
telephone is being used for subversive purposes. 

With respect to kidnaping, Williams stated that he is not sure 
any useful purpose would be served in includii^ this crime in the area in vdiich 
wiretaps may be used since usually the conversations between the kidnapers 
and the victims are carried on on the telephone bebnging to the relatives and that 
police may listen to the relatives’ phone with their permission, according to 
the Supreme Court. 

WUUams stated that in his opinion wiretapping should not be 
authorized to any law enforcement officers except to Federal law enforcement 
officers and then only with the authority of the Attorney General. He stated 
that if wiretapping of an Ulegal character, such as that being done by Federal 
agencies and local law enforcement agencies, is bOiiih’inated,then wiretapping 
by private citizens can be eliminated. At this point Senator Hennings said that 
U the door were open to permit wiretapping in kidnaph^ cases, then it could 
be e^^anded to include aU Federal crimes such as bank robbery, etc. 

WUUams stated that last year it was his misfortune to read 
1800 pages of wiretappfedmessages in a case in New York and that investigators 
In listening to pertinent information, heard conversations by tho family anti 
its lawyer, clergyman, doctor, insurance man, etc. — conversations cf the 
utmost privacy which should not be overheard ^ anyone. 

Williams then said again that in coanecticn with telcphcno wire- 
taps he fcols it should be absolutely necessary that investigators specify that 
a particular telephone is being used to subvert the United States and that tho 
warrant which ihoy obtain under his plan would bo required to specifically set 
this forth. 


During his closing remarks, Willlanaa stated that ho has had 
the c^icnce cf wlrctaps^’^cd^ l$oal enthcrltics in the Ctste cf Kew York 
cn a warrnnt, given to Federal anthnritind to ha has hanCod. En 

etotedihat ha tcUovCd it to tonn:"jti td r^cfcrd a cmwtoxattoa with cncthnr 



M. . A. Jcjnes to Ito, DeLoach memorandum ; 

Individu^ without letting that person know that a recording is being made and 
that he will not make a recording without disclosing that fact to the person 
to whom he is talih^.. Mr. Williams was warmly thanked by Senator Hennings 
for his appearance before this Subcommittee. 


After Mr. ^pset's testimony, this private investigator demonstratedt^ 
certain pieces of electronic equipment for the Subcommittee, including the 
^ miniphone and other recordings. He Indicated that some were activated by 

by voices and that one could be activated by a foreign body enter.^ within , 

ten feet of the activated wire. As he concluded his testimony, Lipset i 

dramatically removed his coat to reveal to the Senators that he was at the 
time wearing ^miniphone. He also demonstrated a radio transmitter which, will 
operate for five days, 24 hours a day. 

Witnesses before the Subcommittee tomorrow will be Paul 
Williams, former U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and 
Harris Steinberg, a defense counsel from the State of New York. Also 
attached is a copy of the Subcommittee’s press release concerning these 

During hearings Senator Hennings told by Subcommittee counsel 
that miniphones, the recording device, are available to Government 
employees through Services Administration and Senator Hennings ^ 

expressed concern and ordered counsel to determine how many Government 
employees have such devices. 


lyV yf-WnOKAl fO«M NO. 10 


X Memorandum 

F Mr. DeLbach 

Mr. DeLbach 

date: May li, ,1961 

«o« : ■ 


subject: hearings ON “WIRE TAPPING LEGISLATION ■ 

MAY IV 1961 

DeLoach ; 
Evorts Uk 



W.C. Sulle 
Tele. Rooi 

Edward Bennett Williams^ Washington attorney, .testified from 
^proximately 1:40 p. m. to about 2:25 p. m. on, May 11, ,1961. Williams had 
no prepared statement but spoke extemppranjeously for about twenty 4five 
minutes outlinirig:Hs views on wire-tapping. 

- He dMt first with, existing law and stated that, in his^ opinion, , 
eristing sia&tes are adequate to prevemt'wire tapping; however, the FBI,,, 
as'flie ageimy*Y?ith;toe authority to investigate yiplations of present statutes, ^ 
does not perform j&Job as the FBI itself ^has, for. the p^t.25 years, been):: 
in violatipnipf Fed^al laws prohibiting: wire tappings Williams theh^went 
on tP comment oniBills being considered by the Comnnttee and, in general, ^ 
stressed opposition tb each bill as he believes wire tapping is in, direct \3 
violation to thb'provisions of the Fourth Amendment, He said that^he beeves. 

I that even.if a bill, sinoilar to those currently proposed, ^ere. to be- adopted 
i it would be declared unconstitutionaL t 

Williams then stated that;he^i^,t'hot so- naive a civil, libertarian” *, 
to believe that aspects of tft^ Wao^ security supercede individu^ libei;ties 
and said that he believed a vfhole new^pproachto the use of electronic devices, 
is called for. He noted, at this pdidt,*'. that, he Believed Mr, Hopv& mi^t 
agree with him. He proposed tKat' the'Fourth Amendment to the Constitution 
"be amended to permit closely supervised wire tapping in those cases ihvolvhig 
-the national defense. 

During the questioning period-following Williams* remarks he, 
at one pbhit, stated ”I do not consider myself a Mfeyerick in opposing wire 
. tapping^ and continued to state that the hidividual ydiddie considered the 
* foremost law enforcement officer in the l^d had expressed. opposition, to ^ 
„ I wire tapping. He then, in rapid succession, quoted'about five sentences 

1 - Mr, Parsons 
1. - Mr, Mohr 
1 - Mr. DeLoach ^ ‘ 

1. - Mr, Evans ^ 

1 - Mr. Rosen ^5^ 

AFHrmcnfsajUN 1 


117 MAY 31 1961 

Memorandum Jones to Deloach 


may n, i961 

e^f essing opposition to wire tapping on-the grounds the abuses of "^e 
tapping eliminated the good wMch could be?deriyed from, it, in that wire 
tapping. Mndered. the development of scientific investi^tive'. methods. 

After concluding, the quotation, .he; said, "these are the words of Hooyer, 
and I don’t me|m Herbert Hoover. ’’ Williams made* no- i^ort ta indicate. 
whenthe Directbrhadimade^th ese staten^tsm or did he elaborate-any 
further. There were no questions ^ect^ tp Mm concerning -the; Etirector’s 


For information. 


ADDENDA MAJ:mcm,. 5-11-61: 

Attached are excerpts from, the Directories' comments before 
. the' Nation^ Academy-lytarcK;30,^ 1&40, to which Y^disuns inightpossi^^ 

Excerpt from ^dress. delivered by 
J,- E^ar' Hoover, Director, Federal 
Bureau, ot lavestigation,. at. jthe 
' Graduation Exercises, Thirteenth 
Session, Nation^ Police Academy 
Washington, D. C., on March 30,. 1940 

Let us further keep the record straight upon such matters 
as wire-tapping and other practices wMch could very easily degenerate 
into the rankest ot unefliical activities. The viewpoint and. the practice 
of theFederal Bureauof hivestigationhave been^harply definedupon 
these points* During my entire tenure of office as Director of the FBI 
for nearly sixteen years, sucKactivities have been frowned upon, and 
despite- the fact that a wide, latitude regarding wire-tapping;; existed under 
die law,, tills Bureau, continuously '.and consistently refused to permit 
anything but the most rigidly' supervised surveillances and then only in 
cases of extreme' emergency* involving the* protection of human life or 
the apprehension of the vilest of criminals. In. 1939, I xefused to endorse 
prpposed legislationin Congress to legalize wir.e-tapping, eyidence 
obtained by Federal.officers. A year before that,, in an article for the 
Georgia Police News, Idecried tiie use of such, methods except in cases 
of extreme.- emergency. 

The records will show that years ago I listed.indiscriminate 
or habitual wire-tapping as a.thprpu^y unethical practice--and I still 
SO; list it. Np law enforcement officer^ is. deserving of the name if he must 
resort to the violation of fundamental civil.rights either to store up 
atnnuini tinn against political enemies,, .tighten his ^ip upon. his job, or 
gain the eyidence by which a criininal- is brou^t to prosecution. 

JUN X 1961 
^ 7 ^ 




‘ Memorandum 

• Mr. Conrad 

FROM : R. L. MiUenIV)iv 


date: May 9j 1961 

Tolson , 

J ^laont r..— , 

sllohOfl , 

/ -^CeLoach . 

Bvans , — 

Molono . 
Rosen . 
Tavol M 
Trotter . 

W.C. Sullivan . 
Tele. Room » 
Ingraa ■ 

subject: senate JUDICIARY COMMITTEE . 

Hie Laboratory's local telephone contact, 
called on May 9, 1961, to advise ,th^ he had information indicating 
that local Attorney Edward Bennetf-Williams was to testify on Thursday, 
May 11, 1961, before the'Con^tutional iSgEls ^bcommittee of the 



Senate Judiciary Committee on Wire Tapping. 

that immediately following Mr, Williams' testimony a Vice President 
of the*'Bell Telephone Companv J I was scheduled to 




I I expressed some apprehension that Williams may make 

some wild unsubstantiated statements relative to wire tapping which 
will be fresh in the minds‘of the Committee mem bers at the time that 
they question the Bell Telephone representative. | [ indicated 

ihat Williams had made such statements in the past. As -you know, the 
Bell Telephone Company at various locations throughout the United 
States has extended considerable cooperation to the Bureau in many 
ways, including the installation of special lines for us in effecting 
certain microphone and telephone coverage. 


Hiatthe above information be made available to the Crime 
Records Division and to the Domestic Intelligence Division. 


t' « 

fOkM, NO. 10 




. ^ 

6 > 

TO : Mr. Mohr 

^ date: May 22, 1961 

FROM .: C. D. DeLoach 


DATS TjMhi^'i 

/Trotter L 

Tele. Roo< 



subject:^ JgSPRaSEJggTT^ 

For record purposes, on Friday evening 5-19.-61 Wick and.I atteKd''^ 
White House News. Photographers Association Annual Dinner at the Sheraton-Park Hot^ 


Following the dinner, while Wick talked with several Time— Life editors 
Land newsmen in Room B-620, Wick was approached by Edward Bennett* WillF^ma; 'theA 
1 Washington attorney. 

^o!( I x PI I 

Williams had been drinking donsi^i^ly. He said he was. intereaped in 
meeting someone from the FBI because he,had just recently testified on wire tap.iegis- 
lationon.ttie Hill. He said he agreedjtlje.]^ permitted the,l%islation to wire u, 
tap in national defense and kidnaping cases*.'*^He^|i6Jhted out that he beliWes the ciyil 
rights of individuals should in emergency situations such as- national defenseiand Mdnap- S 
mg be relegated to a, secondary position. But, he said, the FBI ought to have statutorv 8 
authority to wire-tap. * • , Z 

. /m I 

Williams did a considerable am 9 un]^of talking. He said he wanted ttf ^ ^ 

bring one "Mfi^hardson” of Virginia . 

L^tap^atters, to the Bureau so g 

the FBI can have, the benefit of his ^re tap knowledge. He. said sometime he, hoped to 
•have Richardson request an appoiii^ent to seewsome. of our people. ^ 

f- WiUiams also said he hoped to be able Mr,? Hoover about wlrl=i 
, tap problems) ahd>would like the. opportunity any time after Friday 5-26-61, since he; will 
be out of towmuntil that date. WitkdpMV'OilliSms. he, did not see any need; for such an 
interview since Mr. Hoover's position was well-known. Williams Wd he knew this and 
I ha.d in fact quoted Mr. Hoover in testimony on the. Hill last week. Wick tol^him that the 
^ thing wrong with his so quoting Mr. Hoover was, that he. cleverly, cWefully=^d it % 
appeared by design selected remarks made by the. Director some tw&Ify Q2=S3 ago 

^d the times and. the situation, as WiUian^wellknewj had change^conaidM^btosisince 
then. Williams said, "Well, I’ve tried to see your. boss,on.several*occasiQns and* he 
won't see mg. " W ilhams said he. even set up an appointment^h tke D^toPrfj 
^through BoT^pomer former Agent, now ai i attorney (vdthout Success). W^k-told; ' ol 

1 - Mri Paj^i^ /f 

i:l - Mr. \w' 


(a) ' 

p : 

Mr.vITeLoachto.Mohr 1-22-61 
Re: Edward Bennett Williams 

Williams that Collier had resigned from the FBI in 1952 or 19o3 and obviously wasinro^ 
position wha.tever to speak for .the Director or to set up an appointment. Williams 
admitted this and then countered by .saying, *'I can walk in]^ Bol^le Kennedy/s Office 
to see him any time I desire.." Williams said Kennedy sM&yk ^ve hiin ample^ime and 
saw him. Williams then repeated that he wanted an oppOTturiity to see Mr. Hoover to 
discuss wire,tapping. Wick told him that Rooto B-62^was not the place-to^scuss this 
and Wick was not going to discuss it with himi Williams said Mr. H oover/was aooarentlv 
yraid to discuss it,- and Wick told Williams he should know better. Wink fold win iarhg ' 
'BTresented this ^mark intensely amd Williams knew perfectly well Mr. Hoover is 
afraid of no man, particularly Williams,, and Williams could take that as gospel truth. 
Williams said this did not change his opinion whereupon. Wick told him he was entitled 
to his opinion and that was entirely his business as to what he wished to think. The above 
conversation between Williams and Wick was in private at one side of the room and lasted 
only two or three minutes until another individual came up .tp meet Williams ^d the 
conversation was terminated by Wick. 

i lt was quite obvious tp Wick.that Williams was fishing. Wiiilamg 
to thoroughly dislikeMn^Hoover- and^the FBI^ Williams is a very conceited, tricky, 
evasive and opiniphatM individual. He.asked for Wick’s complete nanie and Wick gave 
it to hina. Wick told WiHkms if he had anything further^o, discuss he could, of course, 
come to us like any other ci^en:to discuss it. 

For record puprbses; / 

^ /A'’ 



- 2 - 

\cfry*iA( fo«*r HO. 10 




jT TO 

Mr. DeLoacli^ 



date: 5/11/61 

STwSsS"" y' 



THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1961 a/ 

Reference is made to my meinor^da earlier today ’Setting forth 
the testimony of Asmstant Attorney General Herbert J . Miller of the Department 
and Edward Benneawilliams before the captioned subcommittee. 



_ Attached is the statement of Assistant Attorney General Miller made 
to the subcomhiittee. He very closely followed the statement throughout his 
testimony and there were no questions put to him completely outside the realm of 
,his statement*. He did inform the subcommittee in response to a question that as 
of 5/i0/61 the FBI had 85 wiretaps. This answer solicited the request that he also ^ 
advise the subcommittee of the number of wiretaps used by the FBI in 1960. No specifio 
date was mentioned in reference to this request and Miller answered that he would j , 
furnish theaiifprmation, and in fact thought it was contained in Mr. Hoover’s testimony*^ 
to the App^pfiations Committee but he did not recall the. exact number. ^ 

In addition to tho previous data relating to Edward Bennett 
set forth in my earlier memorandum, it was observed that he w§^^acpojiipanted*by 
an entourage pfindividuals and that theyjverejnterestedj,^^ 

1 1 weCasleTtifyingl The g5m3vith himjncluded to 

1 1 obviously hung on every word that Williams uttered and clustered around him 
following his testimony. He obviously enjoyed the limelight of publicity. ^ 


1 - Mr. Parsons 
1 - Mr. Mohr 
1 - Mr. DeLoach 
1 - Mr. Evans 
1 - Mr. Belmont 
1 - Mr. Malone 
1 - Mr. Callahan 


Jones to DeLoach Memo 

EE: Hearings on Wiretapping Bills 

^The following additional witnesses testified on 5/11/61: 

Mark Lane, Assemblyman from New York, 

representing the Americans for Democratic Action 

, Dan Ward, State’s Attorney, 

Cook County, Chicago, Illinois 

Herman Schwartz, Attorney, New York City, 

representing the American Civil Liberties Union 

Frank S.*Hogan, 

District Attorney New York County, New York City. 

Mark Lane was accompanied by one William Taylor who was not 
further identifie'd other than being the legislative representative for the Americans 
for Democratic Action, (ADA) Taylor made no statement. Lane’s remarks were 
j very brief and were in opposition to wiretapping and eavesdropping in any form. He 
I stated that he spoke both for ADA and himself personally. 

Dan Ward prefaced his testimony with the fact that wiretapping is 
illegal in the state of Illinois, Despite that he said that it was his opinion that wire- 
tapping, under proper control, would be beneficial to society. 

j Herman Schwart 2 ^ on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, 

I was completely opposed to wiretapping or eavesdropping in any form. 

Frank Hogan, District Attorney of New York County, was very much 
I in favor of wiretapping, stating that it was one of the greatest weapons available to 
I law enforcement although he was highly in favor of proper safe guards of its use. 

. The witnesses scheduled to testify Friday, May 12, are Anthony P. 
Sevarese, Jr. , Chairman New York State Joint Legislative Committee on Privacy of 
Communications and Licensure of Private Investigators, New York, New York, and 
John B, Layton, Inspector, Police Department, District of Columbia. 




DATE 07-31-Z010 


Main File No: 68-96896 
(See also 46-17648; 78-76^ 

Subject: Edward Bennett Jfilliams 


Date Searched: 6/12/61 





See WSerial ^ ^ 

Searched And Identical Referenced Found As: 


£. B, NSlliajns,J>^ 

B, Benn eitSNilli a ms 
Bennett^if/i lAiamsC 

^-sEd Bem&t^illiav^b 

/\ Edd]pf i^li^§. 

/ \ Bdward<^iVivaj0, 

I \ Edward B^Wflliarit, 

I \ Edward Benne'/i^illiams^ 

Also Searched And No Identical References Found As: 

Edward William 
Eddie Williams 

This is a summary of information obtained from a re.view 
of all “see'' references to the subject in Bureau files under the 
names and aliases listed above. All references the above 
names containing data- identical with the subject have been included 
except those listed at the end of this summary as not having been 
reviewed, or those determined to contain the same information as the 
main file. 

This summary is designed to furnish a synopsis of the 
information set out in each reference. In many oases the original 
serial will contain the information in much more detail. 






<.N 0 V 




p. 3 



p. 4 


p. 6 



p. 7 


p. 8 



p. 9 





Add. info 


Additional information appearing in 

this reference which pertains to 
Edward Bennett Williams may be found 
in the main file or elsewhere in 
this summary. 


New York City Police Department 




BuT&mmemo dated 10/19/53 set out information concerning 
liax Nathan Benoff's (100-33700?) signing a statement that was based 
on an interview by WO on 5/23/53, Benoff signed this statement on 
10/12/53 at Los Angeles, Calif. Bencfff, after signing this statement, 
stated that he had returned to Washington in June, 1953 for the 
purpose of signing the statement, but his attorney, Ed Williams, 
indicated to him the Bureau had ho further interest in him and it was 
not necessary to sign it. On 10/6/53 Benoff stated he had contacted 
Williams who told him it was all right to go ahead and sign the original 
statement which had been forwarded to Los Angeles by WFO. 

100-337/107-20 p. 1 
( 17 ) 1 ^ 

This reference was a Bureau memo which enclosed a Stenographic 
Transcript of Executive Session Hearing Before Senate Internal Security 
Subcommittee, 12/21/53. The testimony of Timothy Joseph Molloy (l21-1417l), 
who was suspended from the Immigration and Naturalisation Service on 
ieourity charges, contained information concerning copies of the charges 
against him. Uollo'y stated, his attorney, Murdaugh,, Stugrt^Mgdden in the 
office of Edward Bennett Williams, had a copy of these charges. (Copy 
of transcript enclosed) 

121-14171-53 p. 113 

The files of the Pas sport 0.ffice, Department of State, 
Washington B.C., revealed that \ | (100-405941) passport 

had been pfoked up by a representative of the Department o f State in 
Los Angeles, Calif, A notation in the file indicated that \ 
through his attorney, Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D.O., 
requested on 10/12/54, a hearing before Passport Officials concern ing 
his pqssporti The file further disclos'ed that on 10/12/54, I | was 

— 1 A ^ n T 

interviewed in the- presence of Williams by Ashley J. Nicholas, Assistant 
Director, Passport Office. 

100-,4/)5941^8 p. 1,3 
(14 1^20)1^ 

4 report from ONI dated 5/21/58 revealed that Alvin Sinderbrand 
(65-58664) listed Edward Bennett Williams as a sponsor on his application 
for the bar examination which he passed 12/30/49. On the sponsorship 
affidavit, Williams stated he knew Sinderbrand both socially and as one 
of his students at Georgetown University, V/dshington, D.Q., and that he 
was of excellent moral character. 

(continued on next page) 



Upon being interviewed in the same' caset on 5/9/55 Wilitams 
gave a very favorable report on Sinderbrand, Williams stated he 
volunteered to help Sinderbrand when his name became linked with 
Judith Coplon in 1949, Williams was convinced Sinderbrand ^ s connection 
with Coplon was purely social and not political. He stated Sinderbrand 
was not) nor had he been) a member of the OP, 

65-58664-8 p, 11)41 

A Bureau memo dated 6/4/55 set out information to the effect 
that Ed Williams h ad been to act as Attorney for Elisabeth 

Bentley \ U n anticipation of an ‘ attack by the Hennings. Committee,, 




A Bureau memo dated 11/8/55 re,quested that tlfe address of 
John Jonkel (97-3285) be ascertained. The advisability of contacting 
Edward' Bennett WilTiamS) Jonkel^s attorney) was to be considered to 
determine if he knew the whereabouts of Jonkel, According to an article 
in the '^Baltimore Sun’^ dated June 1951) Williams appeared as Jonkel 's 
attorney during his appearance before the Ma rvland Court to answer 
charges of violating the Maryland Corrupt Practices Act^, 

On 4/6/56) 
France) made available 


copies of 3 letters which were^ exchanged between 
himself and Edward Bennett Williams , Wil liams > t he attorney for Aldo 

written to \ l and requested him to 

the trial or give a deposition under 
clear as to whether Williams was defense 

already promised the 

prosecution to testify) he mnted Williams to clarify this point. 

Zorenso Icardi (64-33267)) had 
come to the U. S, to testify at 
]iws not entirely 


oath, [ 

attorney or prosecution attorney and since he had 
prosecution to testify) he wc 
(Copies of letters enclosed) 





I \ Chevv Chase, 

Maryland, advised on 9/13/56, that she thought her phone had been tapped 
by her hu sband in connection with a divorce suit between she and her 
husband, I I stated she had told her attorney, Edward Bennett 

Williams, about the wire tap and she believed he had contacted Allied 
Investigating Service about the matter, 


On 9/13/56, \ ^ (iSQ-SSS) advised he 

thought Joseph Welch, a Boston lawyer who was the Attorney in the 
McCarthy hearings, had referred his wife to a criminal attorney, Edward 
B, Williams, in Washington, D,0, 

169-383-11 p, 3,7 


The ''MY Daily News of 9/26/56, revealed that Frank Costello 
‘(62-76543), during his denaturalisation proceedings in the Southern 
District of N,Y,, raised two objections to the- proceedings through his 
lawyer, Edward Bennett Williams, The first objection was the "illicit 
use ' of wire tap information. The second was that the government 
invaded Costello 's constitutional right to refuse to testify agaijxjs-t 
himself by trying to call him as a prosecution witness, ^ 

62-76543-97 p, 1,2 

( 7 ) 1 ^ 

On 10/16/56, Lionel Jay Stander (100-2213) , was interviewed 
and exhibited a letter addressed to, him from Edward Bennett Williams, 
an associate of Edward T, Cheyfits, Washington, D,C, This letter i 

stated that Cheyfits had conferred with the Bureau and was informed the 1 
Bureau could not make any recommendations concerning Stander 's case, * 

Stander stated he had previously conferred with Williams who 
told 'him he would be cleared by -the motion picture industry within a 
period of six months. For this reason, Stander thought it strange that 
he should receive this type of letter, 

100-2213-38 p, 1,2 

- 5 - 



A Bureau memo dated i/l6/S7j revealed that on that date, 
Bennett Williams, an attorney in Washington, D.G.y telephonioally 
requested information concerning the number of indictments and the 
number of convictions which resulted in 1956 in ail Federal cases* He 
was advised the Bureau did not have figures for the entire Federal 
Government, and was furnished with figures for the FBI alone* After 
having been furnished these figures, Williams stated that this was a 
remarkable record and expressed his appreciation, but did not state the 
reason for his inquiry. 


( 81 ) 1 ^ 



{ advised on 4/16/57, that Manuel Be Moya Alonso 
(100-167865) made a phone call to Edward Bennett I7illiams, telephone 
number OL 6-8164, 5715 Bent Branch Hoad, Tulip Hill Hotel, Washington, 
B.O., while residing at the May flower •Hotel, Washington, B.G*, from 
11/1/56 to March, 1957* 

Add* info* according to Polks T/ashington Gity Directory, 1956. 

100jlB7865-110 p* 6 


Teletype dated 7/9/57 set out information in reference to 
items found in Frank Costelloes (68-76543) possession- at time of his 
shooting, 5/8/57, Among these items were three business c ards of 
attorneys Edward Bennett Williams and \ \ 


( 7 ) 1 ^ b.c 

A Bureau memo dated 18/16/57, referred to information 
furnished by Joseph P* Kennedy^A* Kennedy stated that his son Teddy, 
who attended the University of Virginia , told him that several people 
had talked to the students there and mote or less slanted their talks 
against ihe FBI* One of these persons was Edward Bennett Williams* 



^^Former Ambassador to England, 

- 6 - 



(protect identity J advisedf when contacted on 1/22/58 and 3/17/58) wat 
Edward Bennett Williams was in contact with Frank Costello (92-2669) » 

It was noted that Williams was Costello ^s attorney from Washington, 

B,0, and represented Costello in his trial for income tax evasion. 


On tha sama dates, the same informant and f 

(protect identity) who ms contacted on 1/10/58, furnished a list of 
the habits of Costello. He frequented the Biltmore Hotel Baths and was 
often accompanied by Edward Bennett Williams. 

On 3/14/58, Costello's case concerning his 1954 conviction 
for evasion of income taxes, was argued before the US Court of Appeals, 
Second Circuit, Southern District ofJ[Y. Edward Bennett Williams-t^ 
represented Costello. Williams advanced^ his reasons for having Costello 's 
1954 conviction set aside in favor of a new trial. (No source' given) 

An article in the '‘NT Herald Tribune" dated 4/6/56, stated' that 
the Supreme Court ignored completely the contention by Costello 's 
attorney, Williams, that Costello's denaturalisation case was invalid 
because it was permeated by wire tapping. 

92-2669-40 p, 


18, go, S9, 32, 55 




NTCPD, advised that on 6/20/57, he 

NT, who was a personal friend of Frank Costello (92-2669J. On 5/2/57, 
Costello m s shot at and slightly injured in an attempted murder. 

I ~l 3 to ted on the night of the shooting, he jwas at home and heard 

of it from Edward Bennett Williams, Costello 's attorney, who phoned 
him from Washington, D.C. 


made available records of individuals contacted 

by Costello. On 3/14/58, Costello met Williams at the U.3. Court 
House, Foley Square, NT, after which Williams was driven to the 
Pennsylvania Railroad Station. 

James B. Hiller, Manager, Madison Hotel, 15 East 56th St., NTC, 
advised on 4/10/56 that Williams stayed in this hotel when he was in 
NTC. Miller went on to state that he had never known any association 
or connection between Williams and Robert Harrison^.^, publisher of 
"Confidential" magazine. Miller also stated that Costello only visited 
the Madison Hotel to visit his attorney, Williams. 

(continued on next page) 

^Costello rented the apartment above Harrison 's at the Madison Hotel, 
and alleyedlp.^ received the permission of Harrison to leave papers there. 



An article in the World Telegram,) " dated 4/29/56) 
stated that in the trial of Frank Costello (92-2869) for contempt 
of court) Edward Bennett Williams stressed that a tell-tale slip 
listing $651)264 in casino wins had been illegally obtained by police 
in an unlawful search'at the’* time Costello was shot, Williams argued 
that this Hllegal seizure*^ ba’rred authorities from using the slip 
to question Costello. 

Add. info. 

92-286^37 p. 24)28)73) 77)167)171) 
(11 183)184)256 




On lS/5/56, W lllQ-S^’ ’furnished photographic copies of^ 
information pertaining to the National Committee to Secur e Justice 
Norton Sobell flOO-3B783S) which was in the possession of I ~l 


Information from above copies set out. 


The information furnished by 7/F 1119-Si'f included a list of 
contacts for the Washington} D»G» area. Appearing on that list was the 
name Edvard Bennett Williams, with the date 6/6/56 and the notation 
*%es not feel he should discuss with us, because he is a lawyer and 
does not go in for public things, 

advised that [ 

National Committee to Secure Justice for Morton Sobell. 

was an officer of the 





Jcdyised that 

attended the third part 

of the Section Convention of the Upper West Side Section of the NY 
County OP on 1/17/57. 

100-387835-2038 p. 74 

( 13 ) 1 -^ 

An airtel, from New Haven dated 9/25/58, advised that Edward 
Bennett Williams, a native of Hartford, Conn. , spoke before a Catholic 
forum in Hartford on 9/25/58 during which time he criticised the FBI 
for 25 years of defiance of the federal laws against wire~tapping and 
stated he thought the FBI should go to Congress for legislation to permit 
wipei-fapping in certain cases, Williams also attempted to justify his 
support of the criminal element he had defended, fClipping from 
^‘Hartford Courant'^ dated 9/25/58 enclosed) 



An article in the ''Washington Post and Times Herald" dated 
10/25/58, revealed that on 10/24/56, District Court Judge Alexander 
Holtsoff ruled that it was permissable for police to drive a 12 inch 
long voice pickup shaped like a spike into the wall and listen to 
conversati ons. Edward Be nnett Williams, who was representing Julius 
Silverman, \ land Nyer Schwarts, acpused of operating 

a $40,000 a aay baseball betting ring, and against whom the police had 
used this new device to obtain evidence, argued that to use this device . 
was to violate the Fourth Amendment ,6an against intercepting phone 
calls. Williams also stated that the Supreme Court had overruled, by 
implication, the 1942 decision on which Judge Holtsoff based his opinion. 

Under existing law, Holtsoff ruled, it did nei-pher. 

63-4296-53-202 p. 1,2 

( 9 ) 1 ^ 



Division, Metropolitan, 





- 8 - 

NT 1266-3ii advised that 

invited Isidore 

Gibby Needlemn (100-341652) and wife to an affair or banquet on March 
26)1959i and stated that Edward Bennett Williams was to speak at that 
time.. This affair was not further identified. 

The informant advised that | 

employed by the National Lawyers Guild until the middle of 1958, 


An article in the NT '^Baily News'* dated 10/14/58} revealed 
that Edward Bennett Williams was attorney for Frank GostellO} the 
gambler. The article referred to Williams as a "master of delaying 
tactic" and "mouthpiece," 

1 00 -341 652- 792 p, IE, 59} 106 

( 53 ; 



Bureau memo dated 9/3/59, set out information concerning 
Bureau coverage of the 62nd Annual meeting of the American Bar 
Association (ABA), Miami Beach, Fla ,, on August 24-28, 1959, Edward 
Bennett Williams addressed a session of 'the Junior jar Conference on 
6/22/59 prior to ABA meeting. The only reference to the FBI, made by 
Williams in this speech, was concerning Cyrus Eaton, Y/hen he criticised 
the FBI on a television show, Eaton was immediately supoenaed by a 
Congressional committee, Williams proposed a bill of rights for witnesses 
before committees. 

94-lr369-1194 p. 


Bureau memo dated 1/29/60 sets out information furnished 

of the Che sapeake and 

Potomac Telephone (Jo, x(C&FJ Washington, D,u, [ 

1 who had rendered 

considerable aid to the Bureau on technical surveillances, was concerned 
over possible involvement in the wir e-tao-hea rinas of the Senate 
Constitutional Bights Subcommittee , stated that Edward Bennett 

Williams had testified before the committee and had stated that "Hhe 
FBI has a single contact at the telephone company from whom ii; can get 
anything it wants, " 

O&P.officials felt that if [ 

wererojolled to testify, he 

could not perjure himself and would have to , reveal his relations with 
the Bureau. 


- 9 - 



0 / 7 / 1 / ° monihly letter from the SAO, NY, to -the Direaf.or. da+.f>d 

3/10/60, information me s et out which wa s furnished bu \ 

The informant advised that \ \ (67-43854) told informant the 

only friend he had in Washington. B.o.. was Edward' Bennett Williams . 

It was felt that \ \ ms. probab. 

ship with F/illiams, 

probably .joking when he mentioned his friend- 



31 87-^980-87 p. 







Bureau memo dated 3/88/60 set out information pertaining to 
a proposed study by the American Bar Association ’s (ABA) Section on 
Original law to determine whether Federal legislation should be passed 
to curtail such multiple appeals to Federal Courts as in the Chessman 
case, ^is matter had been referred to Edward Bennett Williams, Chairman 
of the Criminal law Section Committee on '^Defense Procedure and Tactics » 

Bureau files revealed that Williams was opposed to capital 
punishment. He ms the prodigy of Rufus King, Chairman of the ABA 
Section on Criminal law, and James V. Bennett-'i’ who continually advocated 
Williams participation in ABA activities, (details set out). Difec-tor's 

94-1-369-1893 p.. 1,.8,3 


aVice chairman of the Criminal Law Section ABA. 



Inve stigations Bureau . HYUPJ). 40u Brnnm^ 

\(94-4507 0) maintained a suit e at the 

Madison Hotel, NYC, under the name of \ \ allegedly 

stated that the guests in this suite were Senators and Congressmen . 
_^_^_|adyfsed the suite ms allegedly %ugged" and there was an indication 
that women wereisupplied to the guests. 

Bradt stated that Attorney Edward Bennett Williams had been 
a frequent visitor to the hotel. 






] on 18/8/58, advised that James Hoffa was extremely 

bitter against Edward Bennett Williams because Hoffa had accepted the 
iionitors^<i on the advice of Williams who told him it would be a sample 
■ natter to upset the Monitors and have theni removed. 




iiTeansters Union Monitors (78-1845) 

On 6/11/60. 

'](protect identity), 

If urnishedt information concerning t he Teams ters 

Union Monit ors (78-184s). .The informant stated that when[_ ' 

lioas made chairman of the Monitors, Edward Bennett Williams, 

Counsel for the Teamsters Union, was pleased with the appointment. 

78-1845-18 end. p. 1 





A UY report dated. 8/86/61 revealed that on 11/89/60, Igor 
Yakoiflevich Melekh (105-37365) appeared before the U.3. District Court, 
Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, 111., on the charge of 
espionage and failing to register as an agent for a foreign government. 
Melokh was represented by \ \ of the law firm of Edward 

Bennett Williams, Washington, D.O. 

105-37365-835 p. 3 

( 14 ) 1 ^ 



A confidential source advised on 1/83/61, that the firm 
of Be, Be and Savarese, Members, American Stock Exchange, NYC, was to 
be afforded a hearing in Washington, D.C., on charges of selling 
unregistered stock. The source advised the Bes had retained Edward 
Bennett Williams, Washington, D.O., for a fee of $15,000. 

64-48845-48 end. p. 1 


The "Chicago Sun Times" issue of 3/7/61, revealed that 
Edward Bennett Williams stayed at the Shoreland Hotel, Chicago, 111., 
on the night of 3/5/61. 

(continued on next page) 

0 . 

. (U) 



(oohiinued) Paragraph 1 on previous page 



It was noted that FilHams, the Chief defense dttome\, 

Igor Uelekh) was in Chicago to present oral arguments at the hearing 
on 3/6/61. Melekh had been arrested for violating the Espionage 
Statute and Foreign Agents Registration Act. 

On 3/24/61 a surveillance on | \ (105-73840) 

revealed him in t he company of Mil jams, along v)ith \ 

l ^ou^gt Relegation to the U.N., and Igor Uelckhj in the 
loppy Of the Atlantic Hotel} Chicago } 111. 

-732^0-163 p. 

31 to para. 3 


2 } 

/(J5* 4v</ 

~ 7 I \ aavised that on 

] (105 -74441 J jnd I. Y. Melekh trdVele 








to Washington} v.c,} for 

the purpose of conferring with Melekh 's attorney} Edward Bennett 
Williams. Melekh had been arrested 10/27/60 charged with violating the 
espionage statutes. 

ll05r7^1-36 .p. bJ.O^ 


The following references in the file captioned "American Civil 
Liberties Union"} file number 61-190} contain information concerning 
Edward Bennett Williams* activities as an officer in the Union. Williams 
was elected a member of the National Board of Directors in March} 1957: 




61-190-A "NT Times" 3/11/57 

61-190-A "NT Post" 3 / 11/57 

61rl90-A "Washington Post and 

Times Herald" 3/11/57 

Search Slip Page Numbe.r 




- 12 - 

The following references in the file captioned “Senate Selec- 
Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field“j 
file number 68-103771, contain infomiation concerning Edward Bennett 
Williams, Attorney for the Teamster's Union, and his activities in 
connection with the Hearings, The files 'show that Robert Kennedy, 
Counsel for the captioned Committee, had dinner with Williams and James 
Hoffa of the 'Teamster's Union, An allegation was made that Williams 
attempted to influence Bartley Crum, Attorney for Godfrey Schmidt, 
former Teamsters Union Monitor, which allegation Williams denied before 
the Committee, Williams was instrumental in replacing Dave Beck with 
James Hoffa as head <of the Teamsters Union, 


Search Slip Page Number 

68-103771 -30 

608 p, 8 

1460 p. 1,8 

1461 p. 1 





“Hall Syndicate, Inc, “ 1/86/58 



“Washington Capital News 

Service" 7/13/59 p, 6,8,10-14 



“HI Herald Tribune" 7/14/59 



“Washington Evening Star" 



“f/ashington Daily News" 




“Washington Capital News 

Service" 7/84/59 



“Washington Post and Times 
Herald" 7/84/59 


“Washington Evening Star" 



“Washington Post and Times 
Herald" 7/85/59 



“Washington Capital News 

Service “7/85/59 

(e) ^ 

‘ABireotor's notation. 

The following references in -the file captioned "Wirev^^j,j 
file number 68-12114} contain information concerning Edward Bennett 
^illiams^^ statements and views on wiretapping. Files also contain 
information in reference to Will’iams ' appearance on the Mike Wallace 
ShoW} which was set out in detail in Williams' main file. ^Williams also 
appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and gave his views on wiretapping . 

Reference * 

3107 p. 1,8% 



Search Slip Page Number 


62-'l8114-A "Wash. Capitol News Service" 

%I>i recto r 's notati on . 

( 7 . 

The following references in the file captioned "James 
Riddle Hoffa, Teamsters Union, Anti -Racketeering, " file number 63-5387, 
contain information concerping Edward Bennett- Williams' association with 
Roffa as his attorney. Williams defended Hoffa in his- bribery trial, 
but resigned as Hoffa's attorneyHn edrity i960 because there might have 
been a conflict of interest if he represented Hoffa at his trial for 
misuse of union funds, since Williams was als.o attorney for the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Contained in the files was 
info rmation^furni shed from/ktte files of the Internal Revenue Service 
in reference to Williams and should not be disseminated. Ihe files 
also contained information furnished by a PCI of the J/FO in reference i 
to Williams' intimacy with her. An drticle by "Life" magazine contained 
considerable background information concerning Williams. 

Reference . Search Slip Page Number 

63-5327 -39 p. 8,3 
145 p. 1 
497 p. 7 
597 p. 12 

707 p. 1,8 
712 p. 1,8 

63-5327-A "Life Magazine" 6/88/59 

(continued on next page ) 




63m5327-A '^The ‘Evening Star" 

63.S387^A '^Washington, Daily News" 

63~5387~A "The Evening Star" 3/86/60 
63~5387-A "Detroit News" 4/17/60 

Search Slip Page; Number 


( 10 )^ 

( 10 )^ 

( 10 )^ 

The following references in the file captioned "James 
Riddle Hoff a^, file number 56-r4044j contain information concerning 
Edward Bennett williams' contacts with Eoffa in his capacity as 
attorney for Hof fa, Hof fa was arrested oflJ3/l 3/57 on the charge of 
bribery, was tried in H,S, District Court, Washington, D,G,, before 
F.ederal Jiidge Burneta Matthews and was acquitted on 7/19/57, 

The files revedled_ thdt^Williavis had working in his law' 
office, Edward T, Oheyfits, .whp according to Bureau files, was a. member 
of 'the CP from 1938 to J.948, ’ Oheyfits was' also hired as an. attorney 
by Hoffa, ' . ' 

The files further revealed that Hoff a‘ was concerned as to 
why Robert Kennedy, '^Ghief Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Improper 
Activities in tfie Labor or Management, Field, was , going to Williams^ 
house twice a week, " 

58^4044-3. p_,7 

<^43 p;8,3,4 Summary 8/81/57 
183' p, 8k- 

>167 Summary 3/15/57 
171 p,l,3ii- 

801 p,88 
817 p,l 
380 p,l 
366 p',4 
375 p,l 
488 p,l 
658 -^ 

701 p,l,8-:^- 

•^Director's notation. 

Search Slip Page Number 

- 15 ^ 




58-4044 - 784 p. 1,8 

800 p. 2* 


Search Slip Page Number 

58-4044-A "mshingion Nem" 3/14/57 

58-4044-A ’^Washington Post and Times 
Herald '• 3/15/57 

58-4044-A "Washington Star" 3/14/57 

58-4044-A "NT Mirror" 3/15/57 

58-4044-A "Detroit Hem" 3/15/57 

58-4044-A "Detroit Hews" 3/15/57 

58-4044-A "Washington Star" 3/80/57 

58-4044-A "Washington Star" 3/89/57 

58-4044-A "Washington City News Service" 







58-4044-A "Washington Post and Times 
Herald" 6/15/57 

58-4044-A "HI Herald Tribune "' 6/15/57 



56-4044-A "Washington Post and Times 
Herald" 6/15/57 

56-4044-A "NY Mirror" 6/15/57 

58-4044-A "Washington Star" 6/16/57 

58-4044-A "Detroit News" 6/23/57 

58-4044-A "NY Daily News" 6/88/57 

58-4044-A "Hall Syndicate, Inc," 7/2/57 

58-4044 -A "NY Mi rro r " 7/16/57 

58-4044-A "NY Post" 7/85/57 

58-4044-A "Washington Post and Times 
Herald" 7/17/60 

•^•Director’s notation. 





- 16 - 

0^ Oi 

had infomation io give) the Bureau would acdept it. Williams stated 
that the FBI was conducting an investigation tnto I | matter 

for a Federal Grand Jury in NY., Williams dropped \ | as a client 

because he failed to turn over some letters he had promised Williams 
concerning this case. 


Search Slip Page Number 


1367 ^' 

1372 p. 8 
1385 p. 1)2^^ 

1410 p. 3)1,2)11)12,13)27 

1411 end. p. 1 



•^’Director's notation. 

The following references are newspaper articles containing 
information in reference to Edward Bennett Williams t 

Title of Article 

Type of information 


Search Slip 
Page Number 

D. A. Hogan Tightens 
the Dragnet on labor 

Williams was Hoffa 's 
and Costello 's 


61 -7562-A 
"NY Mirror" 

(26 )i^ 

Costello Charges 
Illegal 11 year 
wiretaps by D.A. 

Williams claimed he 
could prove wire- 
tapping charge by 
calling witnesses. 

62-76543 -A 
"NY Mirror" 

5 : (7)"^^ 

Hearing on Costello 

Williams unsuccess- 




fully opposed 
adjournment motion. 

"NY Daily News 


Hoff a 's lawyer 's 

Halo Tarnishes 

Article condemning 
Williams for tactics 
used in Hoffa Trial. 

"NY Mirror"' 


(continued on next page) 

Title of Article 

Hoffa Stakes All 
on New Show Down 

The Lyons Den 

6th Amendment 

More Sidelights 
on Hoffa Case 

More Sidelights 
on Hoffa Case 

'^Good) Good) Good) 
Good) " says Powell 

Court Hears Powell 

Red Prober *s Right 
To Recall Witnesses 
at Stake in Trial 

Type of information 

Hoffa outlines 
strategy for Teamsters 
Convention to 

Williams in NT to 
Confer with Costello . 

A Biography of 
Williams written 
after winning the 
Aldo Icardi case. 

An article on how 
Hoffa influenced the 
Negroes on his jury. 

An article on how 
Hoffa influenced the 
Negroes on his jury. 

^Congressman Powell . 
expressed his 
appreciation to 
Williams who defended 
him for tax evasion, 

Williams made a mo'bion 
to dismiss an indici- 
meni; against Powell 
for tax evasion, 

Williams argued that 
since his client) 
Sidney Buchman) 
appeared before the 
Committee before and 
told all he kneW) he 
should not be recalled 
since he could add 
nothing more. 




“NY Mirror" 


“NY Post" 



“NY Times" 



“Wash, Post 
and Times 


“Wash, Post 
and Times 


“NY Herald 
Tribune “ 


100 -51 830 -A 
“NY Daily 

News" 7/8/58 


100 -74 874 -A 
“Wash, Post" 


(continued on next page) 

Title of Article 

Attacjt on Court 
Seen a Threat to 

Benton Says Ouster 
of McCarthy would 
Be A Blow at Bed 

High Court Rejects 
Teamster’s Appeal 
in ADA Bribe Case 

Probers Hint 
Evidence In 
Creenlease Case 

9 Ministers Urge 
Support for Powell 

Type of information 

Williams was inter- 
viewed and gave his 
views oh abuses by 
Federal investigative 
agencies of Supreme 
Court dsoisions , A' 
mention was made of 
the FBI, 

McCarthy was represented 
by Williams in a suit 
against Drew Pearson, 

The U,S, Supreme Court 
declined to review "the 
appeal of four 
Minneapolis. Teamsters 
for a new trial in a 
labor bribery case. 

The- four teamsters 
were defended by 

An article in reference 
to the Senate Labor 
Management Investigating 
Committee, Develop- 
ments other' than that 
listed in title of 
article was that 
Williams indicated the 
Teamsters Union would 
comply with an order 
by the Monitors to 
bring charges against 
union Vice-President 
Owen Brennan, 

Refe rence 

Journal " 


31 ip 
Page Numb^ 

181- 83 878- A 
"Wash, Star" 

Tribune " 

7-6980 -A 
"Wash, Post & 
Times Herald 




Powell issued a state- 
ment as to the 
"misunderstanding " 
surrounding his hiring 
Williams, Williams 
did not solicit the 
Powell case, 

. (continued 

61 -3 176 -A 
"NT Post" 

on next page) 


- 19 - 

Title of Article 

Probe of Hoffa 
testimony Sought 
in Federal Court 

Type of information 

Williams was accused 
by Robert Kennedy of 
participating in a 
“fraud on the court. “ 
He had testified Hoffa 
had suspended 2 
officials of the 
Teamsters 'Union and 
10 months later they 
were still in office. 

Refe re nc e To h Slip 

Page Number 

"NY Herald 
Tribune " 

( 9 ) 1 ^ 

- 80 - 



The following references on Edward Bennett Williams, 
located in files maintained in the Special File Boom of the Files 
and Communications Division, Records Branch, were not reviewed* 


mV-* !' 




238 p. 51,54,96 


^242 p. 94,144,1540 



349 p. 54,55 

I ^ 

58-3691-k '‘Nash, Post <& Times Herald" 

Changed to 

Search Slip Page Number 







See the search slip filed behind file for other references 
on this subject which contain the same information (Sl) that is set 
out in the main file* Differences in source and additional non- 
pertinent information will be noted on the search slip* 


'-^ 1 1 




': Jones to DeLoach Memo 


‘ I Constitutional Ammendment authorizing their use in prosecutions. 

Chief Parker at one point contended that 7 out of 10 criininafeare not 
^prehended and that he believes toe use of ^viretap evidence would effect reduction 
in this rate. He quoted the figures of toe Uniform tJrime Reports in this regard 
saying that only 30% of the crimes reported to the police are cleared by arrests. 

The New York Office is forwarding a tape recording of the entire broadcast. 


■ ■ ■ ■ ^ 

For information only. ' 



^ t 

■! + 





,^noHu ratM HO. i» 





*■<2? Tolj 

Y .Co/S&hfefr 
tr "Cpfcy>. 

Mr. DeLo'ach 



>date: 7-10-62' ^ 


Te!e. Hoorn , 
Gandy -- 




ThisNjaemoraridum sets forth a detailed .review of Tl^ward^ ennefe f ? 
Williams* n e w booB:^ )^(^e h&h’s Freedom, ” which contains a numK^if of ^erence^ . 
lo tiiTFBI, the Directs and Bureau investigations. Throughout th^'^ok, Williams, whc 
has served as defense counsel for many notorious persons, professe'^^o'beta^ chai:S)ion ; 
of civil rights and individu^ liberties. IMs book review sets forth his viewi|»concefning 
the following topics begiiihihg, on the page, indicated: ^ -r 

Unfairness of labeling an attorney according to his clients, page 3; 

Improper manner in which Congressional investigations are con- 
ducted, page 5j 

Illegality of telephone taps and other electronic eav'esdroppingr 
equipment, page 7; ’ , ' * 

Need to defend the 5th Amendment, page i3; 

Virtues pf the McNabb and JRMlory decisions, page 15f 

%>r ^ 

Need for pre-trial discovery of evidence and witnesses by the defeh'se, page 

Necessity of .confrontation and, cross -examination, page 20; 


Detrimental effect of publicity and other outside pressures in criminal 

cases, page 21; 

.ffic- 58 

^iiusticeof..^pltal.ip»nishment, page 23; ' ^ ^ 

Problemposeaby emotionally ill offenders, page. 24; ^ 

1 - Mr. DeMch M ® 1 1 V jg^ \f 

1 - Mr. Evans ^4 

1 - Mr. Rosen ^ 

1- Mr. Sullivan ,, 'll . . - ' .^w^rcontinued next r 


/nil .so 1962' , 

GWGrpar (8) / ' 

f 53/)UL.3.0 1962 

.Continued next pag0»,^^ 


; / 

i^one^to DeLoach Memo 
RE: "One lyfen’s Freedom" 

Impropriety of censorship of allegedly indecent.iiterature, page 25j 
Civil Rights.and the Southern Negro, page. 26; and 

' f 

Need for a strong world court, page 28. 


j ' Williams feels "an erosion of individual liberty and freedom" has 

occurred in America and that "We have placed, security in a position of primacy 
- and subordinated individual liberty to it." He warns against ’lawless law enforce- 
ment" and opines that whenever government infringes on individual, rights, "it 
begins with the weak and the friendless^, the scorned and the degraded, or. the 
nonconformist and the unorthodox," 

In connection wit^his, defense of Aldo Ic^di, who was charged- 
with perjuryfollowing.his.appe^ance before House. Committee on.Up-Anierican 
Activities. (HCUA) in connection. with the murder of Office of Strategic Services 
I Major Hplohan. in. Italy,v williams compliments former SA Robert Maheu for 
1 helping;WiIliams establish tha,t Icardi was not involved in Holohan’s murder. 

I (Bureau is circumspect 'toward former SA Malieu. ) / 

Williams refers, criticaUy fo.tiie-HCUA subpeona for Cyrus Eaton 
after Eaton had "made bold to criticize^the FBI over’ a national television network. "- 
Williams asserts that FBI is violating the,law| by using: wire; taps, and he quotes 
statements by the Director in 19‘4() opposing, wif e, tajpping; He also quotes approvingly 
from the Director’s Introduction to.the September, 1952, Law Enforcement BuUetin 
on the, topic of .civil rights. 

The Jencks: decision is mentioned by ^lliains, who feels defense 
attorneys should have access to prior' statements 5f Government witnesses several 
days, before trials begin. He' mentions the .Urschel ki^apihg case of 1933, attempting 
to cast doubt 6n the guilt of Kathryn JCelly. He also cites the James R. Hof(a; bribery 
case, stating, that the jury apparently did not believe Jolm.Cye'Cheasty’s, testimony. 
He claims he was "horrified" when the”Afro-Amefican" published Ms photo shaking, 
hands with a female Negro attorney in a full-pa^e.-ad during the Hdffa trial; and that 

Joe Louis visited!the courtroom on Ms own yolitidn. 

^ <- £ 

, In his defense of ilfeor Melekh, Soviet spy, Williams' claims, he. talked- 
to Attorney General designate Robert Kennedy in effort to have UMted, States ^ree to. 
let the Infernational.Court of Justice ^decide, whether Melekh had diplomatic immunity. 
He also states he talked to FBI Agent after confWfihg w ith. Melekhjn New- 


For information. 





By Edjvard Bennejt Willianis' 

1 1 

This .325-page .took (^ontain^ Williams' observations ^and 
reflection concerning a number of matters, including his perspnal 
^eriences .as a defense .attorney, .r.elating to law. Throughout theibookj 
there are numerous reference to the Bureauiand the;pirector, as well as' 
to cases investigated by the FBI: . These have been specially flagged on the 
succeeding pages of this memorandum by underlining. 

The.succeedin'gpages .cdntain a brief digest— aind, iri'some 
instocn> inpre detailed quotations rrof . pertinent material-in Williams!' book^. 


. . - - . . . . : / 

At fte quteet, Williams identifies^ some of his-past clients, 
including Senator Joseph McCarthy, the notorious Frank Costello, and 
former Teamsters head, I^vitf Bock j, He^states.^that he started'law -practice 
by handling civil'mattOrs,r.but ';it y^as. the law in.its' relations.hip Id .human, 

. rights as distinguished from* property rights which.had first captured my 
attention...." . , , , 

*WUliams.states he authored this book because<fie "wanted to ' 
wnte of the right to counsel,, of fair procedure in.congr.essiohal hearings, of 
the right to prttacy,, pf theFJdth; Amendnient, of lawlesslaw enforcement,- 
of the everyone to a:fair trial, ,pf censorship, of .civil rights, -and of 
'the whole cpncepiphrule pfTay?^’’ . He^continuesV l’Xwahted;.to write of the . 

banicendentlm^’r%ce,of sy.eguar^mg and. pres prying, intact all of» our civil 
liberties, ."and of my (^ep ■conyictipn that .wheney er .gov ernmentlnf r ihges,- ont 
any of fiiese,righta it begins withthe, weak and the^-friendlessj ;pf- tiie scorned 
and tte degraded,: or-.&e^ormist and -the. unorthodox. It. never begins 
with.tfie- strong,]4ej^ popular^.-.LwahtPd to document -my conviction 
ttat.most of tiieldstory of civil liberties in..this country -has been wrilten'in 
criminal cOurtropmsj.;", .And'he p.rofesse.S increasing hdhcern.dver the 
inroads that I'BeUOve are being made into-these,areas"iof individual^ freedom.” 

WiUiams .asserts,, *!We;hav_e,allpwed an„,erosion of andiyidual 
liberty anUfreedpmiortakeiplace intthe last three decades —;not as- the result 
of <the overreaching;Of big government, nor as the resultvof the calculated 

-2 - 


assaults made upon liberties and freedoms, in the last decade, but rather 
because of the collective lethargy and a cavalier attitude, of unconcern. 

I think we have made a substitution in. our national ranking of values. ... 

We have placed security in a' position.of primacy' and subordinated individual 
liberty to it." 


WiUiams.states that in. 1960, .when he acceptedvthe Igor , 

Melekh case (which easels dealt with in.more detail- in -tlie^in^ cfiapt^-' 
of the book), he felt '.'the lash of.stinging criticism^; that "eyery'.tim^I have, 
assumed the defense, of a case, in which ^e.crime charged is, a heinous brie, 
or the defendant is a social or political butcas% the. criticism has come. !' 


He claims that John: Crosby "slandered" him during a tele- 
vision interview (the station and the producer later apologized and. repudiated 
Crosby'.s statement) shortly after he entered;.the Melekh. c^e. Williams opines 
-that Crosby "did not understand the right to counsel guaranteed -by the Constitution 
and the role of the advocate, in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. that Crosby'did not 
understand that for the trial lawyer the unpopular cause is. often a post of honor. " 
He then moralizes that he ha^'taken.many difficult cases for unpopular, clients, 
not because of my own wishes, but. because of the unwritten law that I might 
not refuse." 

WiUiams points but that Clarence Darrbw encountered 
hostility when he defended 20 rhembers.of-.the Communist Labor Party in 
1920. He states that Harrow's answer to his critics was: 

^ J 

- ^ j 1 

^'I shaU.not argue; to. you whether the defendants' 
ideas are right.or wrong. . I am believe them 
right their case. ... But Ldo know this— I 
, know that the humblest ahd'.the meanestsman whp .lives, I 
know that the idlest and the silliest man who liyes, should 
have, his say. .^. And I Ipiow that the: Constitution is a delusion 
and;a snme.if the weakest and tte humblest man, in the, land 
c^not be defended in his ri ght 'to*speak;and.his,right to think 
as. much ^ the.greatest and the. strdngestin the, land. I ,am: 
hot here to defend their (the communist defendants' ) ppinibns . 

I aih here to drfend. their right to express their opinions. " 

WiUiams refers, to ■the:defense pf,Anthony Cramer (naturalized 
citizen.who aided Werner Thiel, one of. ttie eight Nazi saboteurs landed in 
America in June, 1942) by Harold R. Medina. Cramer was charged with tr eason. 






and Judge Medina served as his court-appointed defense counsel. Mlliams 
states tM Medina found himself being treated cwUy/ by' ’’people generally 
Md my friends in particular”; that one spectator .iri, the courtroom even* 
spat in his face; Howeyer, that ’’Filially Judge. Medina’s, courage and hard 
work won a.reversal of Cramer’s conviction by the Supreme Court, t’ 

> The book also throws a. bouquet at the late Wendell L. Willkie, 
who ’’defied public opinioil’during World War n by defending the citizenship 
of MUiam Schneiderman before the Supreme Court. (Schheiderman was a 
self -admitted Communist Party leader. ). . . . ^’Willkie’s courage and hard 
work, like Judge Medina’s, brought about a Supreme pbiirt decisioa in favor 
of his client. ” At the tinae^ Willkie still aspired for the; 1944 'Republican 
Presidential nomination. 

With regard to convictions of innocent persons, Williams 
quotes Judge Curtis Bok.of Pennsylvania as stating that convictions of the * 
innocent far •outnumbS’ acquittals, of the guilty. He states that Judge .!B6k’s " 
view is.”^amatized in Judge Jerome. Frank’s fascinating and fuUy documented 
study of 36 c^es i'n.wliich wholly innocent' defendants were convicted and 
imprisoned for other men’s crimes. ” 

WiUi^s also states that he participated in three cases in 
1956 (cases involving Aldojic^’dl, Fr,ank CdsteUo'and ’’Confidential” 
ma^zme--all dealt with in more detail ’later) which, cbhvinced him tha.f 
’’society is often the winner when the prosecutor loses. He makes reference 
to the rightfb counsel guaranteed defendants by the Sixth, Amendmentr-”nb 
matter how socially or politically obnoxious. '(the accused) may be, no matter 
how unorthodox his'thinkihg or His. conduct, Kow unpopular his cause or how 
strongly the^finger of guilt may point at him.” He also refers to Canon 5 of the 
- Canons of Professional Ethics of the, American Bar Association which states 
that ’.’it is the right of the lawyer to undertake the defense, of a person accused 
of crime, re^dless of his persbnal opinion asfo the guilt' or. the accused; 
otherwise ihrioc'ent persons, victims only of suspicious circumstances, might 
be denied a proper d&ense.” 

■ To the above, Williams, adds, however,. ”It should’ go without 
saying ,ttiat counsel’s bbli^tionfo defend ‘M's client does nbt'imporfc any 
obligation to defehd'Kis client's crime's” arid ”no. lawyer is^ justified 
in defending his cUeht with weapons of fraud and fklsehood.'” 

He thenphilos'ophiz'es that lawyers miisttavoid riaoral judgments 
as to the guilt or innocence of their clients; that no one is legally guilty until 
so adjudged in court. Arid' He admits", ’’S^etinaes the truly guilty go free. 

This is the pfice thafa deriabcratic society riaust pay to safeguard the liberty of 
the i'ririocerit. ” 

- 4 ,- 


WiUiams Rote's J. Parnell Thomas, former chmrman; of the 
House Committee oh, Un-Aihericaa Activities (HCUA) as telling an JHGUA 
witness, "The rights you have are the rights given you: by this' committee. 

We will determine what rights you have what rights you have not got 
before the committee. '• Williams then observes,', "During the past decade 
this concept of congressional investigatory power 'Has been accepted with 
alarming apathy and applied with alarming abandon, " 

Williams deals at length with the case of Aldb Icardi,. who 
visited Williams inl955 to seek MS services' in connection-'with .eight -counts 
of perjury arising from Icardi* s appearance before HCUA in 1953. in brief, 
Icardi had been on an,bffic& of Strategic Services mission with Major 
William V. JHolohan in Italy in 1944. Major Holohan was’kiUed oii the mission, 
'and Icardi was subsequently convicted in absentia the Italian courts of 

murdering him. 

According to Willies, in adMtion to ths in absentia cbh- 
viction in Italy, a release was issued by the U* .S* Defense bepartment 
accusing Icardi of Holohan’ s murder; and newspapers published articles 
identifying Icardi as a’ cold-))lpoded killer^ Thus, when Icardi was. "invited" 
to appear before HCUA, "no one cared' whether such an investigation bore 
any relationship to the proper function of Congress and, its* committees," 

In defending Icardi ag^st the perjury charges* arising trbm 
his HCUA appear’ahce, Williams had no fimds tb make ^ irive^igation. (despite 
the fact thst the prosecution had arranged' to fly witnesses to Washington); 
however, Williams contacted^Robert Maheu, "who had made*a brilliant record 
as an FBI agent and had recently formed his own internationai investigative 
agency, statted with former FBI agents. " Maheu helped Williams conduct 
ah' investigation in Italy wMch established that Icardi was innocent of any 
involyenaent in Major JHpIohah* s murder ^d that responsibility for IdUirig 
the Major actuMiy laiy with Italian communists. 

(Robert.Maheu was a fecial Agent from December, 1940, 
through July, 1947. He resigned voluntarily due to the iU health of his wife^ 
arid his last .efficiency rating was "lExceUent, " Since 1953 y/e have been 
circumspect in dealings with.him. ) 


Williams states that Icardi was acquitted of, the^perjury 
charges on the.grouiid that HCUA was not acting in furtherance of 
legitimate legislative the Icardi hearing- -tha,t .this court 
decision was vitally significant "because it was, the first reported caise. , 
in toee quarters of .a.century to hold that.a .congressional committee 
■had exceeded its, constitutional powers . " 


Williams claims that Senator, Joseph .McCarthy "ti;ansgressed 
the rights of some witnesses in ways, which J, vigorously opposed";, that he. ^ 
had known, McCarty and'had often argued with him about, his tactics; , that, 
wheifthe ArmyrMcCarthy hearings arose in- 1954, McCarthy wanted Williams 
to .assist him in an advisory capacity, but’-Williams decHned ,. 

\Wth regard to McCarthy’s exposure, of the former National 
Lawyers’ Guildaffiliatipn of Fred, Fisher,. 32 ryear -bid assistant. to Joseph 
Wjeich atfee.hWings, WiUiams stetes that, Mcparthy, had toldhim (Williams) 
in the presence, of. Roy Colm about the evidence he proposed, lis.e against 
Fred Fisher; and Goim and Williams made McCarthy promise he>would 
never use it. Nonetheless,. McCarthy went ^head. 

Viliams continues that Senator Ralph Flanders int-rMuced 
a motion calling for. Senator McCarthy’s, censure by the, Senate;’ and; in August, 
1954, McCarthy announced, that he was going to retain \^illiahiU,as his . defense 
counsel Wdliams’ fee was to be, paid by McCarthy’.s committee, .but he^ told 
the committee he would sferye without compensation. Although .46 charges of 
misconduct origin^iy were. filed agains.t McCarthy,, the.list'ultirnately was 
'■narrowed’to two specific incidents, and .the Senate voted to censure McCarthy 
on only one of these--cohtempt of -toe Gillette Committee arising from 
McCarthy’s-declining an”invitation’’ to" appear before that, Committee. 
Wiliiamsieels, that even ttis lone censure cl^rge would not have been sus- 
tained if he and McCarthy had taiown -then, as they learned later, that an 
- ?’oWrzealous’’ member of toe Gillette. Committee, had put a. mail cover on 
McC^thy during.ifs investigation of him. 


" * * 

Mlliams^xpressed the opinion,. "The apex of congressional 
inquiry today is apparently the caPlling of a witness who will invoke the 
privilege a^inst self -incrimination in response to all questions on a subject' 
about which the committee already has full information . " "Williams complains 

-6 - 



that Congressional inquiries irequently-extend beyond the.legitimate sfcope 
of legislative.ihquiries; and. he’ states that when’ heT(Williahis) appeared before 
the.McClellarf Committee in, 1958 as counsel.for James R. Hoffa, he had^^ 
occasion to object that certain questions-directed toward Hoffa could hava 
no real.relationship to a.legislative purpose. 

Williams states that anyone who expresses an.uripopulaij 
opinionis vulnerable to ’*th^, long. arm" of Congressional committees. To 
illustrate,' he cites, tiie case of C^us Eaton, who in- May, 1958, "made 
bold to criticize the. FBI ovfer a national television nety^ork;. Representative 
Francis Walter. . . .immediately signed a. subpoena calling Eaton’ before the, e:q)lain hiinself. ... the most conserva^e quarters, this type 
of ? thought policing’ was too mifch, and the celebr.ated subpoena was never 

In summation. of his. observations, regarding Congressional 
inquiries, MUiams feels «that a uniform .code, of procedures for Congressional 
investigations is ne^ed. * ... 


MUiams speaks of the citizen! s right to privacy- -including 
privacy of the home, privacy of thoughts,, and privacy of conversations— as 
weU BS the.r,ight to silence, and the. right to. communicate.. He.then warns^ 
"The.rapid development of electroniclistehing devices in. the past few years 
has greatly multiplied the number of clandestine, invasions, of these rights. 

He quotes Justice WlUiam .0. .Douglas as stating: 

" With modern, electronic devices, conversations 
within the. home and .the office canibq. recorded without 
tapping any Wires;. The intimacies of can 
be made,public.without,a key .being-turned or a window 
bemg raised; And .those who listen'; may be private detectives 
and.blackmailers, aS',well as law.enforcementofficials." 

To iUustrate the threat of eavesdropping, "Williams cites the 
case of. Bernard Goldfine’,. New. England textile manufacturer and associate- of 
Sherman Adams, and the case of Wellington gambler Julius Silverman. ‘ 

The former, case arose, m; 1958 when one. of .the. rooms occupied .by , Goldfinels ’ 
entoure© at the Sheraton-Carlton.Hotelln Washington, we found’ to be. 
"covered" by a microphone in, the .room next door. This microphone he 
been.installed by Baron.Shacldette, a .Corigressional investigaitor,, and jack 
.Anderson, an associate of Drew Peeson. (Williams subsequently defended 




■Goldfine at his trial for contempt of Congress— arising from Goldfine’s 
refusal to answer some of the questions asked hini by a Congressional 
committee— and the, trial ended with a,plea. of nolo contendere by- Goldfine 
and a suspended sentence.) ^ ■ 

Julius Silverman- also obtained Williams’ seryices as. defense 
counsel following, his arrest on gambling charges. It appeared to Williams 
-that the District of Columbia- Police Department- and Mernal Revenue, agents 
,h^ used one or more telephone^taps against Silverman; and Williams filed 
motions to suppress all evidence which had-been seized, when. Silverman’s 
house was raided. However, a special microphone, not a telephone tap, 
was used. to pick up conversations inside. Silverman’s house. Williams’ 
lost his motion to suppress, and.Silverman was convicted; butj ‘the Supreme 
Court subsequently reversed the a decision, which indicated- 
the Court would not tolerate electronic eavesdropping wherein the microphone 
penetrates the premises of -the person involved. 

hi haranguing/against technical* surveillances, Williams- sides 
with Justice Brandeis* dissenting, bpinion in Olmstead v. U.S. (The Olmstead 
case, decided in 1928, resulted in a'Supreme Court decision that the protection 
.^inst unreasonable searches and seizures applies only to physical; tangible 
objects— and that conversations cannot be ’’searched” or ’’seized. ”) Brandeis 
stated that listening in on conversations constitutes invasion of privacy and 
urged.that the Fourth Amendment be, interpreted -to keep, pace with- advances * 
of' modern science in order to protect citizens against invasions of their 
individual security; 

■After warning that telephones-can be transformed, into 
microphones to cover conversations within a room; that, tiny microphones 
can be. concealed in rooms; and that long-range microphones, can.pick up 
conversations- hundreds ofJeet away, Williams cites the study entitled 
’’The; Eavesdroppers” completed in, 1959 by Samuel Dash under the sponsor- 
ship of the,'Pennsylv^ia -Bar Association-Endowment and with a grant, from 
the-Fund For the Republic. He states-that DasWs, study- ’’revealed widespread 
use of concealed microphones by police and-private, detectives” for ”an endless 
variety” of purposes. 

WiUiams.-is convinced that the Supreme Court will overturn 
the Olmstead decision and wiU rule that physical ‘entry by the eavesdropper 
or physical penetration of the eavesdropper’s equipment onto-the-prehi'^es! 
of the persons involved is not necessary before‘thei'”victim” can. invoke his 
Fourth Amendment-rights; He states, ’’Such a ruling would restore the right 
to privacy to the highplabe w.hich-the Constitution gave it. . . i*The concept 
of a man’-s house as his. castle is completely inconsistent with surreptitious 
police surveillance of every conversation in that house. If the police may not 

-8 - 



enter physically, they may.npt enter scientifically. entry by electronic, 
eavesdropping equipment Is the most effective, clandestine and sinister kind 
of entry." 

Williams does feel, however, that some, extreniely limited 
use of technical surveillances may be necessary— and, if so, a. constitutional 
amendment will be required to permit the issuance of search warrante for 
evidence of crime. Before passage of such an, amendment, however, he 
states "a strong demonstration must be made by federal law-enforcement 
^encies that our collective security is so imperiled by tre^on, espionage 
and sabotage, that drastic measures are heededf. A demonstration mi^t further 
be made that eavesdropping is a useful .and necessary weapon for combating 
these crimes. I have grave doubts whether such a showing'could ever be, 
made. . . .We defeat our own ends if we adopt the, techniques of totalitarianism 
in security cases." 

hi referring to the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 

Williams states that unlike eavesdropping, wiretapping is a federal crime; 
but, "despite this.’fact, wiretapping is rampant fni tae. nation* today. It is 
perpetrated by private inyestigators in aU;kinSk;^ cases. . ,It is perjietrated 
by public law-enforcement officers both surreptitiously and under a'seif- 
serving declaration that, what they'doing is necessary for adequate law ^ 
enforcement. ’ Necessity has been the argument used for every infringement 
of .human rights smce the birth of this country . " 

Williams cites data in Dash's "The Eavesdroppers" indicating 
that New York City police, who say they tap 300. or 400 telephone, lines a 
year, actually make an estimated 16, 000 to 29,'OpO wiretaps a year. 

Asrdefense counsel for the. notorious; Frank Costello in tae. 
denaturalization. case against Costello in, 1956, WiUiams claims he was 
fully ^psed to the problems and evils of wire tapping. At the time, 

Costello was serving a prison term*f6r income tax, evasion, When Williams 
exmin^ Wrecbrd of the, tax trial, he concluded taat some of tiTe.eviSence. 
had been obtained through wire taps; and in del\dng further, he "discovered^ 
that Uierehadbeen atap oii Costello' sJhome telephone at intermittent intervals 
over many years. 'During the period of the ,taps'> six.policem'en sat in. 8-hour 
working in teams of two. They listened to and transcribed, everjr con- 
versation.over Costello's telephone, whelthent^He a participant or not... , . 
the persons victimized by these w’ire taps were not just persons who used ' 
Costello's telephone. Taps were placed on publta telephones in.restaurants 
frequented by him.- ^eryohe who used those, pay-station telephones liad a 
hidden, third party listening to every word. ..." 


Williams states that wire tepping; by, Federal officer^ was 
stopped by Attorney General Robert Jackson in. 1941 but ;was,' r esumedan' 

1942 at bhe direction.of O^esidenl Rooseyeltf s (actually, ^osevelt sent his 
wire-tap, memo to Jackson in May, 1940)rthat on May 11, 1961, the Justice 
Department announced.that the ^ had 87 wire taps .in .the. country as pf that 
date— all "purportedly'* in security cases. Williains. continues,; "Admittedly, 
the FBI a lso uses wiretaps in kidnaping cases. The Justice Department defends 
these wiretaps, as being both necessary. and legal. To understand ho'v^ tli s 
argument of legality is made and why it/unspund, it is necessary^ to trace the 
law as it has developed. " 

MUiams again cites the’5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling in, the 
Olmstead case that wire. tapping, does not violate the. Fourth Amendment; 
then, he states that Congress recognized the right, to telephone privacy when 
it enacted the .Cpmniunicatipns Act in 1934 providing-that "no person not 
being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge 
or publish the existence,, contents, substance, ,, t. or meaning of such inter- 
cepted communication, to any^person. " He, continues , that the. Supreme Court 
ruled in.the .Nardpne case in 1937. that evidence obtained through wire tapping 
by Federal officers cannot be used against the "victim" in Federal cpimt and, 
thereby, the Cpurth' showed, it was "unwilling to .allow law enforcement pfficers 
to break the law tolerret out crime. " 

Despite this "clear holding that wiretapping by federal officers 
is illegal," Williams declares,, "The Department of Justice seeks to defend 
Ms defiance of the law on the theory that Section 605 does not prohibit . inter- 
ception of telephone and-telegraph messages,, but only, interception. and 
diyulgence. " 


He.refers to a statement by- the Director in. May, 1958, pn^ 
television 'That hiS bureau had.ninety wiretaps installed as pf that^d^y. " Then 
he moralizes, "Onthe’same'day aprosecutpr ’frpm the same Department of 
Justice was asking, a New York jur' convict James Hpffa of thsTeaindBrs 
Union, for ^egedly installing one- wire tap. TMs seeme' me. tp'be a classic 
illustration of the dangers ^d evils of lawless law enforcement, pne division 
of, the Justice Departnient was prosecuting a man for breaking a law which 
another division. . .was, itself breaking at that very moment. " 

* (He uddoubtedly is.-referring-to an article in "The. Evening Starts of May 11, 

19,6T, stating that* Assistant Attorney General Herbert-Miller had, told a- sub- 
committee of. the Senate-Judiciary Committee that the FBI was. currently tapping 
85--n6t- 87 —telephones, all in security cases; ) 

* (On a program fUmed for the then Congressman Kenneth Keating' s . 
constituents in May, 1958, the Director said, "At present, we have less than 90 
wire taps. All of them are in cases involving the Nations security."* This 
obviously is the television program which, WiUiams has in niind. ) 



Williams quote^ a portion of a,letter he. received from. ^ 
Assistant Director of the. FBI w hich took- Willies to task for criticizing the 
Bureau’ for wire tapping in a speech, Williams made at .Georgetown University. 
Enclosed, in, the Assistant Director’s letter was an opinion expressed by the 
then, Attorney Gener^ Jac^on in 1941 that ’’There is ho Federal statute which 
prohibits or punishes, wire tapping alonq . . The, only off ens e under the. pres ent 
law is to ’intercept any communication and divulge, or publish' the same. 
Williams then states he is convinced that Robert Jackson, would have, con- 
cluded his 194Lopmion was. wrong if the wire tapping question. had faced 
him. after he became a member of the Supreme Court-.-”I say this because 
even a .quick look at the wiretepping statute shows that Attorney General 
Jackson was wrong. The. statute outlaws, not only tapping and. divulging but 
also tapping apid making-use of the information obtained through the wiretap. 
The last part ‘of Section 605 says it is. a crime for the wiretapper to ’use. the 
same or any information .therein contained for his own benefit or for the 
benefit of another not entitled thereto.”' 

He continues,- "LtMnk that.if wiretapping is regarded by the 
responsible heads of tii e FBI as necessary to successful law enforcement, 
they should press Congress, vigorously for a change in theTaw. But their 
argument for a change would .be far more cogent^if they went before Congress 
with a record of obedience to the existing law rather than with a long history 
of cavalier .defiance of it. 

"The record compels.the conclusion that the Department of 
.Justice is.npt confident of its own position. Despite widespread private 
wiretapping, .which.eyeryone,^rees. is illegal, .there was for many years, reported prosecution for wiretapping. . ... Withiew exceptions, the 
Department of Justice.has been forced to take the position that it cannot tap, 
wires hand.and prosecute wiretappers, with the. other. '' 

Williams says that ’’responsible. sources” have questioned 
the utility of wiretaps,. in any.crimirial cases, and that "there is .certainly 
grave doubt about.the v^ue.of taps in national-security .cases . For example, 
in the, of Judith Coplon. . .the government .convinced the court 
that none of its evidence, came from. wiretapping, although MLss Goplon's- 
telephone was almost. continuously tapped. Her .conviction.was reversed only 
because these wiretaps interfered with her right to hold private conferences 
with her attorney.*^' There has never been a prosecution of an alleged spy, 
traitor or saboteur in which the government gained its evidence from wire- 

* (This was a letter written by Assistant to the Director L. B. Nichols in 
1957^ BufUe. 62-98896-8) 

- 11 - 

T (Actually, Coplon was convicted in both Washington and New York; 

The New York conviction was reversed on the. following grounds: (1) her 
arrest by FBI Agente without a warrant was, illegal; (2), the defense should 
have been given full access to all wire, tapping records; and (3), the defense 
should have been given an opportunity to learn. whether the .ori^nal. informant 
which set the FBI investiption in motion was a wire-tapping/sbUfce. The 
Washington convictioi^^manded to tte District Court for. a hearing to 
determine if the Government haU intercepted telephone conversations 
between Coplon and her attorney before and during trial.) 

Williams continues, ’’Interestingly enough,, the .view that wire- 
taps, do not subst^tially aid in law enforcement was once, held by J. .Edgar 
Hoover. Mr. Hoover’s public attacks on wiretapping were numerous. in. the, 
six years foUowing the passage of the Communications^ Act in .1934. During 
that.time he caUed wiretapping an. ’archaic and inefficient practice’ .which 
^Has proved a.definite handicap or barrier, in the development of ethical, 
scientific, and sound investigative technique;,,. ? 'He let it be represented 
that he was’the.first federal, offical to .oppose wiretapping. . .and.he has never 
in court.used 'evidence so gatoered. ’ . , 

”In a news interview he ( the .Director ) declared .tiiat.he had 
’consistently opposedsthe practice, (of wire; tapping). ’ He said in a formal 
press relase: ’Statements have^appeared to the effect that wire tapping has 
been. used by representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation inviolation 
of existing.laws.. At no time, has there been a single .instance of any action of 
this kind on the part.(of any FBI Agent). . ..since I have, been,the; Director, . . . ’ 

”He- (the.Director.) ^5^^f&^ Department .of .Justice its elf : ’ Whiles 
I concede that the. telephone tap is^from time, to, time, of limited . value in the 
criminaLinvestigative fieldj I frankly and sine erely believe-that if a statute 
of .this kind were enacted the abuses arising therefrom would, far outweigh ‘ 
the value which might accrue, to law enforcement as, a^ whole. J In/a.pepartr 
ment of Justice press release it was .represented that Mr, Hoover belieyed 
that ’.the discredit and. suspicion of enforcing- branch which. arises 
from the.occasional use of .wiretapping, more. than offsets the. good, whichb-is 
likely to- come of (to) it.’” 

* ' 

(The above. statements attributed. to* the.Director. are taken 
primarily from.Department of Justice press r eleases, dated March ,13. and,X8, 
1940, and a letter, from the.Director to William. E. Read of .the. ’’Harvard 
Law Review” on February 9, 1940.) 

Williams wants to bring wire taps under the Fourth, Amendment; 
and if the FM can 'show that it desperately needs- the right to tap wires in 
security cases, he feels a revision of this Amendment should be submitted 
to the states to "allow the courts to abandon our traditional policy against 
searches for evidence. . .but only in cases where the national security 
is at stake. He states,- "This would authorize the invasion of privacy 
only in the protection of the most'Vital interests of society*. It would also 
bring wiretapping under judicial supervision. -The judiciary-is the traditional 
bulwark between citizen and-prosecutor. . . . It is unfair to ask. the Department 
of Justice to pass upon the propriety of its own requests for wiretapping 
authorization. .. .Once we have ended the sorry spectacle of federal-officers 
tapping in defiance of f^eral law, we can enforce wiretapping laws- just as 
stringently as we enforce other criminal statutes . " 


Williams refers to the 5th Amendment as "the most maligned 
part of the Constitution.-" Hfe declares, "Too -many persons have forgotten 
that the-5th-Amendment is a citadel of liberty, guaranteeing far .more than 
immunity from compulsory self -incrimination." He does concede, howeyer, 
"Without doubt it hinders the conviction of the guilty -far more frequently than 
it-protects-the rights of the-innpcent. " 

Among situations in -which the protection of the 5th Amendment 
tmight be, vital to an innocent man, Williams cites the hypothetical- case of 
a man who had attended. Communist -Partyimeeting^, stating that this man- 
"might be well advised to plead the privilege even if he had no understanding 
at the time of the Party’.s.;iUe^l,objectives and hence was not guilty of- any 
crime." . “ . . 

-Among the factors Williams feels: underlie the; "current 
- hostility to the privilege against self-incriminationj' is its "repeated invocation 
when apparently harmless questions are asked. Williams cites the appearance 
ofhis-clieht,..David Beck, Sr., before Senator McClellan’s Committee- when 
Beck declined’ under the 5th Amendment to answer whether he (Beck) knew 
his .own son, David- Beck, Jr. According to. Williams, Beck’s claim of , 
privilege was "clearly correct" because Beck, Sr., was uiider.Federal 
indictment for income-tax- ev^ion,- and”everything to- which- he testified 
would be screened-by*the prosecutor for use against him at his trial;”’ 

Willimns feels that to ask Beck whether he -knew jhis. son was either a 
"fatuous and captious- question asked, for no. legislative purpose and designed 
only as a means to taunt the witness, or it was asked as the openihg question 
in a line of inquiry regarding financial transactions between father and son. ’’ 


- * — ^ 

• ^ 


. refers to the case of Jane Rogers, who admitted 
she had semdas treasurer of the Communist Rarty in Colorado but 
claimed privilege against sblf -incrimination whem asked to’ name her 
successor, in office. The Supreme Court ruled that Rogers had waived 
her privilege by .testifying freely about her own occupancy of the office, 

Williams states this ruling ’’seems fair enough, because obviously the 
witaess 'was not f^rful that her testimony would tend to incriminate her. 

Her real motive for belatedly claiming-.the privilege was to protect someone 
else, and.concededly the protection of the privilege is personal. ”* 

Another .case cited is that of Sidney Buchman. 'Williams: had 
been counsel for Hollywood writer Martin Berkeley in 1951 when Berkeley 
appeared before HCUA and admitted fornier Communist ]^ty member- 
ship naming almost 100 other Holl 3 rwood personalities' as Party members, 
including Sidney Buchman. Buchman, also a writer', was called before the 
HCUA and admitted being/disiUusioned former Communist‘^rty member; ' 
however, he declined to name others with whom he was associated' in the 
Party. WiUiams states that following his HCUA appearance, Buchmantleft 
HoUywood— ”. . .his career was^ruined. Because he- had- refused to ’cooperate’ 
with.the committee by ’naming names, ’ he was no -longer employable; But, 
worse than that, he-faced certain conviction, for contempL No conviction 
would have been possible had he declined, on. the basis o^rivilege, to give 
the committee any information at.all. But. .-. Buchman couid not in conscience 
inform on others.” 

hi.tracihg the history of immunity-statutes, Williams writes 
that in 1857, Congress enacted a broaddmmunity statute covering witnesses 
before Congressional Committees and. in Federal courts; however, the statute 
was soon repealed because so many prospective defendants were rushing for- 
ward to confess their misdeeds and thereby avoid prosecution. -Congress instead 
provided that no. testimony given by a witness before a Congressional Committee 
or a.Fejleral.court could later >be introduced into .evidence against him; however, 
the Supreme ,Court.held that this statute did hot preclude reliance upomthe' 
privilege.against self -incrimination. ‘ ‘ , 

WiUiams continues that Congress has enacted many statutes 
granting complete.immunity; that in 1954'Congress adopted anHmmunity statute 
covering.witnesses before Congressional Committees and Federal ’courts' in 
regard to security matters; and in 1956, a.similar statute was*passed covering 
narcotics cases. v • , ' ' 

- 14 - 

to addition, states have also enacted immunity statutes ~ 
but, MUiams declares, these, statutes are powerless \o coitfer imniimity 
from Federal prosecution, thereby causing a dilemma for the state witness. 

MC NABB, MLLORY and other "SAFEGUAMDS” (P. 145-162) ‘ 

Williams disagrees with those who call procedural safe- 
guards "techhicalities. " .Rather, he states, ’’they are the rules which 
our.^erience has shown are.necessary in the interplay he^eeh the rights 
of society and the rights of the individual. This is why we have plac^ a 
judicial officer between the .policeman and the citizen, to determine the 
validity of an arrest. It is why ^ a.ccused tos the right to know sjpecifically 
the nature of the. charge a^inst him and to confront his 'accuser face, to face. 

It is why he has. the right to have questions ^fecting Ms liberty determined 
in a dispassionate forum free from entrinsic influences. ” 

‘ ' if- 

According to Williams, ’’whenever and whereyef there 
have been invasions of ciyil liberties and infringements of hunaari rights 
by those who hold authority, the first victims haye been, the poor ahd the 
downtrodden, the. weak and the. helpless, gv the unpopular and the scorned.’” 

. .in noting that the Supreme Court’s 1957. reversal of tiie 
Andrew Millory rape conviction touched off heated legal controversies, ^ 
Williams. states,. ^’Most people did not consider whether the N^lory ride 
was a good.or principle. They had been told repeatedly that 
Mallory was a bad man and^they were violently opposed to any rule wMch 
.blocked his. conviction. 

JVilliams comments that the i^Uory rule is meri^y the 
application of an old principle to a new set of facts . He state’s that in the 
McNabb decision,, handed down fourteen years earlier, the. Supreme Court 
reversed-three. convictions, for murder ’ijifecause. they were. l^ed'upoh,.con- 
•fessions secured as a result of the. same principle-Tunlawful delay in taking 
the arrested person before a* commissioner. 

hi' endorsing.these ridings,. Williams states, that the hardened 
criminal does, not need.a conamissioner or anyone else to adyise him drhis 
irights, butthe youthful.and the person of .limitedantelligence do not understand 
about.the;privilege i^inst self -incrimination, Jthe .right to counsel, etc; 

’’It is a.shaiifi, ” he states, ”to advise such people of their constilutional / 
rights after die police have, questioned them for hours or even days to exbact 
admissions which virtually ensure convictions . ” 

-Williams, remarks that cases of physical coercion, against 
arrested persons are- rm:e- today, *’but psychological coercion, is equally 
effective and far more-difficult to' prove.'" He quotes Judge j'ero^e Frank 
as stating, "Policemen have discovered that they need neither inixicate 
devices nor violence. The easiest way to persuade, a man to confess to 
whatever you want is to deprive him of sleep beyond, the.’point of rior,mal 
exhaustion, questioning him endlessly. " 

Williams also observes’ that most of the hostility to the 
McNabb-Mallory rule undoubtedly stems from the fact has been 
inyoked-principaUy in cases of heinous, murders arid rapes -where guilt 
seemed clear— "Before trial, however, we cannot have one rule for 
innocent prisoners and another for guilty prisoners, because we do not 
know which.are which until the verdict is returned. .Under our law * ' 
naaking thisf judgment is the function of the jury. It must hot be usurped 
by the police, no matter how able and sincere they may" be. " 

He continues that there is; reason to believe the. abofitibn of 
the McNabb-M^lory rule would not really iricrease'police. efficiency; that 
many experts have said an efficient police force relies oh scientific metiiods 
of investigation rather.than upon adinissioris elicited frohi the accused by ' 
prolonged questioning. He,.then quotes a portion of the Director’s Introduction 
to' the September, 1952, issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin wherein 
the Director remarks that "civil rights-violations 'are" all the' more regrettable 
because they are so unnecessary. " ' . , 

Williams also notes'that thb .FBI r equires' its Agerits to warn 
•the accused. that he is not required to make any statement and that any state- 
ment he makes may be used against him. 

Williams states that his objection, tolhe.’hfeillory rule is that 
it 'does nobgo far* enough- -that it does not ^ford protection- to’ the^ citizen 
who is "unlawfully arrested, illegally detained land then.'ir eleased with, no 
charge preferred gainst him" and it does not apply to sta:te police. He then 
refers'to a'"truly shocking" study of illegal detention by the Chicago Police 
Department, which study was published by the American.Civil Liberties 
Union, and he concludes, ’’The staggering statistics from that city (Cfiicago) 
indicate that'hundre^ of thousands of Americans 'are..unlawfuUy 'held 
incoirimunicado by state police'eyery year:" ' . - 

hi summingmp his yiew^s regarding.'procedural safeguards, 
’Williamsjphilosophizes, ’!So long'as*we;tolerate lawless law enforcement By 
state-police, we shall have it.. .We must understand also that the good interitions 

- 16 - 



of police officers make^ their violations of procedural rules all the more 


Williams strongly advocates pre-trial discovery in criminal 
cases. He. claims that the innocent defendant, not the guilty one, suffers, 
under the present system because the guilty persons ■ usually knows the 
identity of the witnesses against him,, as well as. what these, witnesses 
have told the grand. jury and what they will tell the tri^ Jury. However, 

*!an innocent defendant. . .may well be unaware of the identity of &e wit- 
nesses agknst him. He has no way of knowing, wimt Mse pr misleading 
testimony produced the^utfounded charge; a^inst him. ” 


hi noting that pre-trial discovery is provided for under the 
Federal Rules of CivH Procedure, WiUiams oteerves,^ ”1 do not believe 
that the founding fathers intended to surround property rights with greater 
procedural safeguards, than those which protect liberty. . . ,. pur .present, 
procedural jules, are archaic because they ejqiressjtiiat personal proper^ 
is mor.e important.than personal liberty). ... They date back to medieval^ ^ys 
when land was more valuable than the, serfs who tiiled it. ” 

i . ill* ^ ^ ^ , 

He next attacks alleged abuses of the. Commissioner's 
preliminary exaniinationr -which examination, he states^ ,is,,thep^y 
provisioaof the present, rules of criminal procedure which permits real 
discovery., WiUiams cites the Commissioner’s responsibility under Rule 5 
to.inform the accused of his right tp a prelimiimry examination and, unless 
the accused waiyes, ttis right, to,hear the evidence against hind "witMn a 
reasonable time." WiUiams states, that the preliminary examination prevents 
the government from holding an arrested person indefinitely without "probabfe; 
cause, " and it also, gives the.defendant a^ chance before his.trial^to l^earn .who 
is accusing him .and.exactly what the. accusation is. 

.. .According to, \WUianis, however, "When, giveithe defendant this, chance, it. . . Mis .the commissioner that not yet,.prepared to.present its evidence and/asks.for a continuance. . . .. 

It .(the, government) .then proceeds to present the.pase, to, the grand jury and 
secures an indictment before the date fixed for the preliininary exanaination. 
Sincethe purpose of. this examination is to. determine whether the defendant 
should be held for action by the grand jury, it is apparent that no examination 
, wiU ,be conducted after, indictment. " 

- 17 - 

Williams claims Ms. first experience with this strategy 
to evade the Commissioner's preliminary^ examination was in the James R. 
Hoffa bribery case in Washington in March, 1957. WUliams writes: 

"The FBI arrested Hoffa on the- night of March 13, 

1957. At approximately 1:00 a. na. on March. 14, 1957, 

^ he was taken brfore,the commissioner . An Assistant 
' United States Attorney asked to have, the prelinainary 
examination postponei^Fwo weeks, on the ground that 
it would take the government two weeks to prepare its 
evidence.. I objected violently, because I felt sure that 
this postponement would deprive my client of any pre- 
liminary examination at all. I was convinced that ,^e 
FBI would not have arrested Hoffa until the. government 
hadfall the. evidence it could possibly find,. . . " 

!'The commissioner, however, accepts the govern- 
mente representetiqn.that it was unprepared to present 
ite eyidkce and grantettjf postponement. Mne hours later 
the prosecutor began to present his evidence before the 
grand jury. Five da^s, later the. grand jury returned an 
indictment. The preliminary* examination never took place. " 

(Bufile>58-4044-l91 verifies that at the hearing, before him. 
early on the morning of March 14, 1957, S. Commissioner 
^lain cpntinued the hearing until March 2 A despite the vigorous 
protest of Williams. Hoffa was indicted ii^rch 19. ) 

In comnientingon this trial of Hqffa for bribing, Jphn "Cye 
Clieasty, an employee of the McCleUan Conamittee, ^Uiams states,. 
"Apparently the jury did hot believe his : (Cheasty' s| testimonyj becai^e 
they acquitted Hoffa. I have often wondered how much of this . , . woi^<l 
have been, unnecessary .if ' r had been given a chance' to question Cheasty 
at a preliminary examination when the facts were fresh and he. had had, 
no chance. for extensive preparation before festfiying. Chesty ha<d'spent 
days with the. pfosecufof preparing his testinidny before he actuaUy .went, 
oh the witness stand. " (More data"on.the HoHa bribery trial appears oh 
page 22.) . , 

defense of the prosecuuon's eviaence ana wimesses, noiia.states, "The/Suprefne 
Court took a lohg step toward reniedying these inequities in 1957-, when it decided 
the Jencks case. Jehcks was a union officer charged with filing; a false 
non-Communist affidavit.. The. principal witnesses against him, Harvey Matusow 



** * * 

and j. W. Ford, were FBI informers, -The trial judge refused to let 
Jencks? s lawyer see .the reports which ^tusow and. Ford had made to the 
FBI concerning. Jencks, -because Jencks’ slater was, not able to show any ' 
inconsistency between their irial testimony. and jtheir reports. . . . fo.a; cele- 
• brated and highly cratrpversial opinion the; Supreme Court held ^that a 
defendant is entitled to inspect prior .statements by government witnesses. 

^ It pointMout the. ateurdity .of requiring .the def endant>to .show an inconsistency 
'between their testmiony and their .statements before he has seen; the state -• 
ments. It also pointed outithat inspection by the .teial- judge, to deterinine 
whether there is any ihconsisteiicy cannot be satisfactory^ "• , ^ 

' V- 

He continues, "The; Jencte decision, raised. a.storm of conflict. 

If .was wilcdy predictedthat every FBI file would be opened to the forces . 

, of subversion and- that law. enforcement .wo.uld become.iihposs.ible. '^ Williams 
adds that KdfeelsVit wouldibe preferab^ .the defense to be furnished the 
prior stitemenfs of (^Vernmehtjw.itaesses,''’several.days jor a w.eek: before.* • 
•trial" rather ton during the .bial,, in prder^to'assur^e an opportunity to care-, 
fully study them witiiout the pressure of , triaLand 'in, order to give,the defense ; 
an, opportunity to, run down leads . suggested by the witnesses’ statements. 

... , ' . >■ . 

.Willies; states, that a; "classic; -..e^mmple of the neejd.for fair 
discovery procedures" ca.n:be found inthe 1933, trial of -Kathryn Kelly 
(Mhchihe-Gun Kelly’s wife), for. Mdnapihg.. .He asserts .that.I^thryn Kelly * 
mighthavebeen.falsel'ycpnvicted,-, stating,, ”Perh|Lps.,. .the , FBI .had. in. its ' 
possession. in. 1933, attffie time'of .Kkthryn. Kelly’s triad,, 
most persuasive; character iliat.shejhad not signed, the letters, in .question 
(two letters, bearing MachinV-Gun'.Kelly’s signature .which, were .-mailed in 
Chicago after- the kit^p victim, had been-returned and the, ransom JihdJjeen , 
paidrrtwhich.letterswere/identifiedby aprivalte,. not an.JFBI, handwriting, 
examiner as having been,'wrilten by Kathr yn, Kelly)’; , After thp letters .had 
been ex^ined by the,locaLexpert, they were sent to ;the* FBl Laboratory 
in' Washington; .There they were intensively examined by the .bureauls 
top handwriting analyst^ .Charles A. Appel, whoVconcluded.that, the. signatures. 
Imd nobbe'en. written by Mrs. -Kelly. ...^ This'.evidence was.kept from the^jury 
that tried l&thryn.KeUy, K the. jury, had known, that the. local . e^ert-.whb 
testified.was wipng,. according to iheibureau’.s, and that-Mrs. 

.KeUy was undoubtedly telling thte .truth about. the letters, the. result might 
hive been different. " (This, matter has been separately the . 
•General hivestigative Division.and, the-.results set.forthdn .memoranda irhnl 
lyfr. Rosen to ,hfr. .Belmont dated, June 15, ahd.2'6,. 1962, based.upoh a portibh. 
otWilliams’" book printed in the June 16, 1962, issue of "The -Saturday Evening. 
. Fost»") 

-19 - 



According;to Williams, the major ar^i^nt against tte 
application of fee civil rules of discovery to^crinainal procedure is. t^t 
fte prosecution cannot compel the defendant to testify. He does, not feel 
tiiis is a valid reason for denying discovery procedures^ to the- defendant, 
giving the ludicrous argument .that ’’the 90-per-:cent record of convictions 
in criming cases obtained' by toe government each year is ample testi- 
mony to toe fact .tot the scales areveighted heavily for toe prosecutor 
once, toe case gets, into court. " 

confrontation (P. 186-205) , ^ . 

Williams asserts, that the right to confront and cross-examine 
one’s accusers is an indispensable saJegujtod in any system of justice. Yet, - 
he continues, many Americans identH 3 r cross-ejmmination<wito ^trickery; or 
wito wisavory efforte to coitiuse or berate honest witoesses--”Hundre(fe pf 
.motion pictores, and television; shows ^ve. created'^e image- of the crafty 
lawyer wlio^conceals truto.or who deliberately confuses;. truth. with f^Ae- 
hood through cross-examination. ’’ 

Williams acknowledges that few people dispute toe need for , 
confrontation andjcross-ejmminatiqh in toe courtroom,^ but tois is not true 
in. loyalty hearings and other awlministratiye proceedings ’’where Americans 
have.lostitheir jobs,, their property and their reputations. . . .>Thisrproblem 
became partictorly acute during the heyday of toerCoinmunist sP^e, inihe 
early 195b’.s, Meh.wef e,fired fromCt^l^; government joW arid ’branded ^ 
•’security risks’^ce to know :br to question; those who accused' 
.toem'; Men were smeare^l’a's Communists or Communist sympatoizers and 
lost their repuktions jvithout an opportuitity-to probe by cross -e:!mmmati6n. 
toe 'testimony of toose who spokefa^instWm.' 'fhps^ were nob^bright pages 
in.our history,. 'But the' worst'may have passed/. . . ' 

’'Without cphfronktion ^d'cWss.-examinatiori^ a man -brought 
btoe a hewing bp^d, is subject. to trial by inquisition. His a.ccuser may be 
a trained FBi i nformant', or he may be a. malicious busybody, pr he may be, an 
incompetent. wito a flair for melbdrania. We saw alLtoree kinds during the 
earfy'495b’s. . .He may be stable, or ui^table; bright or stupid, right or yrong, 
but the man who is, accused' can neyer chaUenge^him/ Thp charge , may be a 
mis^e. It-rnay be a bureaucratic error . ’’ 

- 20 - ■ 



Williams concedes that there are situations in which the 
disclosure of an informant's identity could do' serious damage to our 
national security; and in such instances he feels it is acceptable to -remove 
a security risk from a> sensitive position without confrontation. But he 
feels the decision to remove the security risk under these circumstances 
should be subject to review not only by a board- of appeal but also by the 


Williains states, "Far too often bystanders in the mob and 
in the market place. ; . influence the. outcome of individual cases. In many 
instances the result of this meddling is a miscarriage of justice. 

As an example of "meddling with -the -judicial process, " he 
cites the 1958 indictment- of Congressman Adam- Clayton Powell for income 
tax evasion. Williams notes that there was intense press interest in the 
Powell tax case when it first came before the grand jury in 1956; and that 
following pressure exerted through, the pages- of William F. Buckley’s 
"National Review, " the grand jury indicted* Powell on his 1951 and 1952. 
tax returns. 

Powell retained Williams4o defend him; and Williams- was - 
astounded tp le^n that Liternal Revenue agents-had never interviewed* Powell 
concerning his i951 or l952 returns; nor had an attempt been made for a 
civil compromise. Williams also was astounded to learn of "the unorthodox 
and highly irregular" things' which happened with-regard to the grand jury— 
primarily arisihg'from pressures exerted through Buckley's "National 
Review. " -Williams-concludes; "It was almost two years before the effect 
of the external influences upon this grand jury could be fully measured. 

But what developed'during the course of the trial of this case dn the spring 
of i960 compels the conclusion that the indictment of Congressman. Powell' 
was born of hysteria;" (The indictment regarding Powell’s 1952 tax return 
was dismissed; and a hung jury resulted-at the trial ?on. his 1951 tax return, 
with the Government subsequently dropping the charge. ) 

- Also-cited is the Supreme Court’s reversal last year of the 
murder conviction of Indiana’s notorious "mad-dog killer, " Leslie Irvin, 
because of the intense pre-trial publicity his case received. 

Returning to the Hoffa bribery case,wa]iams:-declares: 

-21 - 



•'So much is said about the defendant’s right to 
a fair trial that sometimes we lose sight of the fact' 
that the same right belongs, to the prosecution. A 
brazen and outrageous attempt was made to put fingers, 
on the scales of justice ,in the Hoffa .brib..ery trial in 

Washington in 1957 One*, afternoon as I returned to’ 

court after lunch.I was introduced, to .a woman' ]^wyer 
from'the west coast;. She was a Negro. As I stood 
chatting with her for a’nioment, a photographer called 
us to look his way and siapped, our picture. The incident 
meant absolutely nothing, to me at the time. A few days 
later I was horrified, to see the picture in a, full-page 
advertisement in the ’AfrorAmerican} a p^er having^l^ge 
circulation among the Negroes, of W^hington. The adver- 
tisement recounted, in detail Hoffa’s long record, of 
friendship for, the Negro people and theii; causes . The 
jury trying Hoffa was predominantly Negro. Obviously, 
the.advertisemenl'had been. placed .in' an .effort, to influence 
the jury in Hoffa’s favor. 

"This was the, darkest .day of my. professional 
life. I have never before nor since been so upset. . . . 
Neither I nor any lawyer assisting me had ah. inkling 
that',;was,to appear. T held a 
long inquisition .oteyerybody in any way cohnected 
with the defense, including the defendant. himself. 

I can honestly. say thatl satisfied' myself that no. one- 
.directly .or indirectly connected, with, the defei^e st^., 

anything about the appearance of the ad. lean 
honesUy say .that. Pm. sure Hoffa himsjelf knejw; noting, . 
of It. It was the w.ork of a well.-niotivated m^^dlerfrom 
.Detroit who.thought he was helping, his. friend.^ jimmy’ 
and who acted wholly on his 6y?n.:” 

Williams, continues that.he,had selected, eight ch^acter witnesses 
.to testify onHoffa’.s behalf at the bribery trial'. Among,;besawas Negro i)oxer 
joe.Louis. However, at the; last minute, Williams decided not to use 'any of 
the character-witnesses becausetheir* appearance on. the stand. wpuld:i)royide. 
an avenuelor the prosecutor to cross rexamine- them about, "ali’the derogatory 
rumors, hearsay and gossip' attecting the defendant’s, reputation; ’’ Williams 
personaUy told Louis that he would not be.used as, a witness; and he'claims) 

- 22 ^ 


1 » 

sltUng in the back, of theoohrtroom 
mat ^e^^ternoon- He had come to court whoUy on his own, insofar 
^ I then. or have ever found out since. I very much doubt whether 

Mm.. . .,^yeryone whohad any connection with, the trial 
ws his presence had not the remotest effect on the verdict. . .-. The 

seemato grow each y^ar and moreslegend and lessTact gets 
mto it. Needless to say, Tm sorry he ever came to court. But had I 

toown he wg coming to observe the trial that. afternoon, I would not 
have, asked him to stay away. •’ 


Pf,nnnc T supports Cauon .35. of' tho. American Bar Association 

SS,rl Criminal. 

banphotographing;or bfpadcasting.'courtroom proceedings. 
Additionally, he comments that there is a parked, difference between 

co^ittee hearings. whictare,t4v.ised.and those which, are 
not— Ldwe say ^t if a*grant were made to study the subject, it could be 
demonstrated convincingly that ten times, more useless, irrelevant, 

S o vIL® inane questions, are propounded in the, televised hearings. . . . 
Everybody must geionxamera. " ' 

opposmpN'To capital ;pyigKHMEOT^^ 

.Wiliiams. opposes capital punishment. He states: 

"C%yl Chessman’s IX yeto^s. in ’deathvrow* before, 
his execution in 1960 underscored more effectively .than 
any.otoer episode,in;Xecentyears the’inhiimanity, the- 
mjustice ^d the inequal% of capitol*punishment. It is 
inh^an because its deferent effects are now recognized 
^ a nayth. It is uiijust leaves no remedy for a 
mistake. It is unequal because it is exacted almost 
excliKively of the poor and the ignorant. lids}: in^short', 
a relic of the barbarous days, when our law demanded an eye. 

* ' * # 

....... - "^Mminologists,^ penplogist and. sociologists . 

genefaUy agree that there, a^o only two reasons for 

^ punishing, those who commit cri^^^^ to attempt to , 

rehabilitate them and to deter others from criminal 
ways. But you can’t rehabilitate a dead man, and the 

record is conclusive that the death oen 
have, greater deterrent effect than .life 

does not, .. 
mprisonmeit . " 

- 23 - 

Bi addition. to the Chessman case, Williams, cites the Willie 
Lee; Stewart case to prove* that captial puiiishment "is, neither swift nor' 
sure. " (^ewart killed a grocer during.a hold-up in;the District of Columbia 
in 1953. He ha^ thrice been convicted of first degree murder for this 
offeMe, and each.time his? conviction has been reversed. ) 

Williams also points to tiie . Justice Department’s action 
in ‘finally" adypcating abolition of mandatory capital j)unishment.f or 
first degree murder in the District of Columbia ”beca^^. it recognized 
tiiat in such cases juries were reluctant to convict anq/appeals courts 
reluctant to affirm conviction. " He cited, statistics reflecting that 104 
defendants were indicted fot first degree murder m.D. C. from 1953 to 
1960, but that by the end of .1960^ ;only oiie of these had been electrocuted. 
.(Bureau of Prisons, statistics show there was one electrocution, in Washington 
in 1953 and one in.i957.) 

WiUiams, also states that FBI crime statistics show- that most 
of the states which Mve abolished capital punishment have a lower homicide 
rate tiian neighboring states which retain, the death, p enalty . 

. He makes the astonishing statement that it is ’’almost unheard 
of for a convicted kiUer to'kiH again after release from prison. Parole 
authorities do not release such prisoners unless convinced that.they are, no 
loiter dahgeDus to society, hi any event> the. risk. of recidivism-is out- 
weighed by the risk of executing innocent men.* " .Additionallyj he again cites 
Judge Curtis Bok’s remark that convictions of the ’innocent outnumber' 
acquittals of the guilty; and he states that capital punishment ’-’is indefensible 
if only renders irreversible these miscarriages of. justice. 


Willi^s’quotes'the late' Judge. Jerome N; Frank: as observing 
"Society must he protected agaihsfyiolehce and, at;the, same time, avoid 
punishing sick men whose violence drives them, beyond their pwn, controls, 
to brut^ deeds.. ,A society that punishes the sick, is' not wholly civilized. 

A society that does not restrain the' dangerous ma^ari lacks- common- sense. ” 

WiUiams, comments, ’’Too often, Tvhen a' man has committed 
one crime after another, society has not paused' to* ask why, Instead, it has 
sent himio prison again, 'if it had' asked; why, it might- have, found.a man who 
was mentally ill. It’s easier not to ksk. why. .It’s. eaSierdb send io prisons 
men who should be in hospit^ w'sffds thhn it is to face aU the problems inherent 
in squarely confronting men^ iUhess. ” 

- 24 - 





He then theorizes, "Most criminologisl&V^,^ sociologists, 
judges Md lawyers regard rehabilitation and deterfenceVs. the true 
objectives of criming justice. The ideal is. to’ rehabilitate the offender 
for a useful life in society and deter him and others. . , There.are those 
who talk of the protection of society as the real goal .of the, criminal process. 
(The Director, of course, is in this group. ) This has always seemed to me 
to be another way of pressing the.deterrence„theory with simply a shift 
of emphasis. Finely, there; are, those who regard the whole, concept of 
criminal justice as an instrument of social vengeance. " 

Williams claims .that lawyers traditionally haye b.een 
."bastions of the status quo. We seem to have a basic. distaste for moving 
the iaw forward into new are^. " And.he states lawyers have a ’Ibasic Jack 
of faith in psychiatrists, and in the -treatment of mental illness -. A poll, taken 
.a few years.ago among 4; 000 persons, mostly professional people, showed 
that only in the legal profession was there a relatively great distrust of 
psychiatry. " 

He, also states, that juries cannot properly evaluate the 
mental condition of a defendant unless they have all the facts, "but evidence 
of mental iUness is seldom spread ’before a. jury as graphically and in as 
great det^l as is the evidence of the crime. Thus, the impact made by 
the facts of a crime is so , great that the .jury loses sight of the mental 
condition of the drfend^t., jiVhen.this. impact isjoined.with.the attitude of 
many prosecutors and some, judges that almost no one' should, be acquitted 
by re^on of insanity,. tiat psychiatrists are not to be trusted and that insanity 
defenses are fo be regarded with great skepticism, it is no wonder that ther^e ' 
are many miscarriages of justice. "' 


In 1955, "when;the;Ppst C^fice Departmeni^advised ^'Confidential" 
m^azine that no issue of "Confidenli^." could be sent.thrpughthe mkuliuntil the 
^st Office had read it and. concluded that it contained nothing "improper. " 
Wiliams w^^hired to counsel that ma^zine.. He moralizes that if the Post- 
master Generaf cm bar ’’Cqnfidenti^" from the mails without notice, without 
charges and without a hearing, he can do the same to any periodical. He also 
observes that the position of PostnaMter Generd traditionally has gone to the 
chairman, or campaign manager of tiie yictorious political party; and he qliotes 
- approving^ an editorial written by Alan j^rth^in;"The 'Washin^on, Post" 
criticizing Arthur Summerfield's action against "Confidential. " 

-25 - 




Williams also mentions the case of One, Inc., versus Oleseh. 

He notes the homosexual appeal of ’•One” magazine and states, ”As Judge 
Desmond of the. New York Court of Appeals said of the Sunshine ]^ok and 
One, Lie., cases, ’Presuniably, the court having looked at these books 
simply held them not to be obscene. (’’One” is well known to the Bureau. 

It has attempted to cloak homosexuality in respectability by such. tactics 
as implying that there are homosexuals in the FBI.) 

Williams feeils^that a ’’workable” definition of the term 
obscenity is needed and that the Post Office Department should, ’’confine its 
censorship hard-core pornograplyor dirt for dirt’s sake. ” He 
acknowledges, however, that ’’reformation of postal practices will not mean 
the end of the censorship problem” because ’’every state except New .Mexico 
has statutes directed toward obscenity, and. there are also countless .county 
and municipal regulations. ” 

He observes, ”E: 5 )erience has shown us that both official 
censors at the local level and private societies, formed, to suppress lit^rary 
vice feel almost irresistible impulse to stray from; the path, of moderation 
and good sense. They tend to become, obsessed with the chase and lose 
perspective in their gratification, over finding the objects of their search. ” 

He cites.the example of a female member of Indiana’s State Textbook Commission 
who demandedthat.Robin eliminated from school textbooks on the ground 
that Robin Hood foUows .the communist line. This.woman also demanded elimination 
of all references to the Quaker religion because ’’Quakers don’t believe in 
fighting wars”^and such a policy .is helpful to the communists. 

WiUiams objects to censorship activities of police and other 
city officials. He notes that the National Organization for Decent Literature 
and other groups are active in this field, and he states: 

’’VirtuaUy none of the literature .which offends 
their moral sensibilities, and against which, they are. 
carrying their attac|:, can be lawfully suppressed.under 
the First Amendment test for obscenity laid down by the 
Supreme Court of the United States. ” 


Referring to the global struggle between communism and 
democracy, WiUiams states, ’’hi the war of competing ideologies, our victory 
should be inevitable because we are right. But we shall prevail only if we 

- 26 - 



practice what we preach, if we live as we. talk. And in this basic fact lies 
the relationship of our domestic crisis .'to our global challenge. 

"We are in a crisis in race relations precisely because, we 
have not acted like a government of .Taws. We have allowed, the established 
law of the land to be mocked. We have permitted. one sixth of the nation, 
trough its leaders, to ignore, thwart and frustrate the law of the land. 

And because of this we have suffered the world stage. " 

He refers to the 1954 Supreme Court d^egregation ruling 
and states, "Eight years, later the law of the land is still miet with arr d^t 
defiance by naen in jiower who regard.themselves as above the,- law. Eight 
years later 95 per cent of the South’s Negro students are still attending 
segre^ted classes. " 

Wiliimns is. "convinced that we are. blessed, in the 19 60’ s with the 
greatest Supreme Court of .this century. But itj like any other court, must look 
to the- executive. branch bi goverhment’for .the -enforcement of its decree's.’’ 

He laments that, except for certain of tbe larger cities, the 
Negro in the Souft is effectively disenfranchised; ^d he. cites the. case of 
Joseph Atlas, a Louisiana Negro farmer who appeared 'before the Civil Rights 
Commission to secure the rigM to vote. The day after he.’testified, the 
sheriff of hiS parish told 'Ati'as’ that ha (Atlas) longer be. able to get 
his cotton processed in that. parish. This proyed true; however. Atlas 
caU'ed* the Civil Riglits Commission and. the Justice Dep^tmeht; arid the latter 
asked for a court order aimed at those who r efus ed to dearw'ith. Atlas . As a 
result, "the mercharis j^reed that they would, sell to. him and gin his cottori as 
they had done, before, he. testified. But a year M'er Jba Atlas still had hot 
been registered to vote. ’’ 

Williams ,observes tha.t the; purchasing power of Negroes in 
this country has been estimated at $18 billion. He, urges’ Negroes to spend 
their $18 biUion only in places which, accord them’ equal justice, equal respect 
and equal opportunite* He points out that the Federal Government, by Executive 
Order, deals for goods and services only with contractors’ ■^d include anti- 
discrimination clauses in their contracts. 

stating thatsuch a selective buying policy is preferable to 
the- ’’sit-in" demoi^teatiQns which have been used in recent years, Williams 
declares, "The ’sit-in|’ is an affirihative action which. fime and again has. 
caused the eruption of violeiice. Negroes, iriay win fair treatment as a result 
of ’sit-ins, ’ blit the violence they breed does America no good, eitiier internally 
or as it faces the world.” 

-27 - 


< * 


Commenting upon the arrest of ^r Melekh for espionage 
by FBI Agents in October, 1960, and his (Williams’)' subsequently agreeing 
to defend Melekh, Williams states, ’’On the surface it .appeared to be no 
different from the score or more of Soviet espionage cases that had been 
uncovered since 1945, most of them involving Russians enjoying diplomatic 
status. The usual practice had been to send them home after appropriate' 
protests were re^stered. But this case had brokeninthe, wake of 'the ,U-2 
incident and the tri^ of Francis Gary Powers. ... It was. the first tinde in 
years tiiat our government had secured an in^ctment and effected the arrest 
of a.Soviet citizen.” 

Williams observes that the Soviets claimed that'Melekh enjoyed, 
diplomaticdmmunity. Heathen goes into a'dissertation concerning his'belief in 
a strong world court’ and world rule of law. He states that, the hiternatiohal 
Court of Justice was created as an adjunct to. the United Nations, back in 19|b; 
that the Mtern^onal Court has been a failure and has yirtually^no business; 
that'the United States.”must,^sume major responsibility for the, court’s failure, 
because we have refused to. submit unqualifiedly to its. jurisdiction by virtue of 
the Connally Amendment (which Williams wants repealed); that the United States 
has brought four suits against Russia before the Wor^'Coimt, and all these 
cases were dismissedbecause Russiavwould not. consent to be' sued; 

With this. background, Williams then- gives the foUowhg e^lan^on 
of his handling of the’ Melekh' defense:. 

”i met Melekh iri late November at a hotel in New York 
just off Madison Avenue; We t^ed for several hours. While we 
talked, FBr A^eiits sat' downstairs in a'car and watched the entrance 
to.the.building. Melekh was* a highly intelligent man, soft-spoken 
ahd^articulate. He' seemed frightened and;cbnfused. He readily. 

^eed that if I accepted hisxase, I should have total . contr ol. . .1 
pointed out to representatives of the ’embassy that legal questions 
involving the immunity of 'international employees were involved 
and that ! wanted the power to dispose of 'these questions in 
accordance with iny judgment. — They s^eed! 

"When I left the hotel several hours later, the FBI 
agents were still sitting unobtrusively in. across the street; 

I couldn’t help smiling ^ their obvious curiosity, about my'ident% 
and the reason for my visit. They had seeii me erite'r earlier' with 
the attaches of the Soviet Embassy. I walked to the nearest inter- 
section turned down Madison Ayenue and paiised'at a shop 'window. 

- 28 - 




One of, the agents emerged frpm 'the car* to be'gin the "tail. " 

He hurriedio Madison. Avenue and.turned the corner, almost, bumping 
into me. I could not resist’the temptation, to. introduce myself 
ande^^lain that I had just conferred'with l^dr Melekh about 
representing him at trial. The agent .was nonplused at first. 

Then he grinned' sheepishly. His sense of humor overrode his' 
embarrassment. We -shook hands pleasantly^ amd he walke d 
slowly back to hisic'^. ■* 

"When I got back to Washington. I called Robert Kennedy 
for an appointment. ; The Attorney General designate -was not 
familiar withihe Melekh case. There was no reason he should 
have. been. I gave him the background; of. the case and briefed 
him on some- of the legal questions involved. Tlie main question 
atdssue was .whether -Melekh, as an official of the United Nations, 
enjoyed diplomatic. immunity from criminal prosecution. 'l- 
told Mr. Kennedy that if-he would agree -on^behalf of the- United 
.States'government that-’this. question} which turned on the inter- 
pretation of the, treaty^ creating the United ’Nations} could be -decided 
by the.Mernational'.Court of Justice, I would so^a^ee on-behalf of- 
my client. I said to him that.-I-thoughtfrarely} if ’ ever, were two 
lawyers given the change, to m^esuch.a.' contribution; to the/ cause* 
of world peace; -If .iuy.udesP^^caldplemented} it would mark the 
first time in history that the USSR had ever submitted to the 
jurisdiction:of»the World Gourt. .. .V 

"Robert Kennedy, quickly saw the possibilities of the 
idea, and I think he was intrigued’by them. He saw the whole 
case in its-true- perspective; Merely convicting another spy 
would be.insignificant in the course of international events. But 
getting the Soviets into court -would- open up- horizons unlimited " 


Williams continued that after a number of weeks/ Attorney 
General finaUy told himidhat his propos^ was rejected. He gaye Williams 
ho reason why. 

Judge^Edwin Robson- in-Ghicago- ordered that Melekh appear on; 
March 24, 1961, for arraignment and for the setting of a. trial date. However, 
on March 22, while New York the Attorney General, called 
him and told him that the- Government would voluntarily dismiss. theiMelekh 
case; . - . 

*(No' incident such'as this‘ could be-found in the sections of the Igor 
Melehh file covering the’'Fall of I960.') 

Before Melekh left the United States, Williams had a 
talk- with him some members of the Soviet United Nations delegation, 
including Platon D. Morozov, a Soviet jjawyer. Williams e: 5 )lained to 
Morozov his hppe that both Russia and the United States would one day 
make unqualified declarations: reco^izing the compulsory jurisdiction 
of the fiitemational Court. "Williams claimed that Morozov joined him in 
his expression, and that Morozov ^reed diat strengthening and e35)anding 
of a world judiciary' would^offer the best hope of world ^ace. 


Mr. Tolsoniv.^ 
Mr- Bclmor^ 


J, iidgar Hoover 

iho h'ecler&l Bureau of Investisation 
Viashinston, B. C. 


W” ,si,tS) 


V^?r D&Lodch- 
fMn Evans« 

I^Ir. Src^livan- 

Iilr. Tavcl 

Mr. Trotter^., 
Tele. Room„ 
Miss Holmes. 
Miss Gandy— 

June 15£2 

7?t //-/ 

,‘v;o ftfeuks ago, in an article written bj- Kr, i,dward Bennett 
lUllLaas , the e-ninent V/ashington attorney, in the Saturaay' 
Svening' Tost, he aade a startling accusation at the jc’sl 
In a case v.iisrc. your departraent* s haudvfriting expert had 
evidence to the contrary , *Y.hich waa withhx;ld, with the result 
that an ianoe'ert i^rson- was fraudulently convicted. 

And yet, I rent^aber in that grant piece of propaganda, a 
best selling novel sone years back, titled, I believe, the 
F 3 I Story, you said that the FBI' will go to great lengths 
to provs the innocence of a person. 

(I uould you comnent on this disparity ? 



f 'i r 



/ ^ 

^ «« ,o-JursrT962 







•itOflRO'kArVoa** KO. to 








Mr. Belmont 
C. A, Evans 

(Inquiry received by 
Post Office Department 
from Senator Long) 


: 6/26/62 


Memorandum from Mr. Belmont to Mr. Tolson, dated 6/2^62, set 
forth information concerning inquiry received by the Post Office Department 
from Senator Long of Missouri, regarding mail covers. Chief Inspector Montague 
of the Post Office advised Mr. Belmont that as a result of an inquiry by a St. Louis ^ 
Dispatch newspaper reporter concerning the Post Office policy on mail covers, 
Senator Long has asked the Postmaster General for certain information, such as 
the number of mail covers in existence, rules and regulations governing these, etc. 

In my absence. No. 1 Man C. H. Stanley discussed this matter with 
Assistant Attorney General Miller who had been previously contacted by Chief 
Inspector Montague. With reference to the possibility of a Bureau representative 
accompanying Mr. Montague at the time he personally discusses the matter with 
} I Senator Long, Mr. Miller stated he understood our position that it would be better 
j I for a Dei)artmental official to accompany Montague. Mr. Miller indicated he 
desired someone render assistance to Montague and that either he or some other 
Department representative would assist Montague. The Bureau's position as to 
our complete control on the use of mail covers was completely explained to Mr. 
Miller. It was pointed out to him this technique is used sparingly in such matters 
as internal security and to a limited degree in important fugitive or racketeering- 
type cases. MiUer was fully briefed on the Director's policy concerning*mail 
covers. . o 

Mr. Miller was very specific in his statement that he ^s certainly not 
in sympathy with the position of Senator Long or Ed^rdBennetf ytimams regarding 
mail covers; that it was a simple matter to talk agalns^ffiSfre^WtSafshould 
Senator Long's child be kidnapped or if some other incident happened he undoubtedly 
would change his mind on mail covers. MUler was very cryptic in this regard. 

He did ask tha.t the Bureau furnish him, if possible, with any^materiali available 
which might show the necessity or value of mail covers in certain t^e cases. He 
stated he wanted no elaborate document but that in order to assjsLtheJBos^ffice 

1 - Mr. Sullivan 

67 JyUlS 19624 

CHS:inaw ^ Z/i 

( 6 ) 



Memorandum to Mr. Belmont 


Chief hispector Montague of the Post Office is being advised of our 
discussion with Miller concerning ^s matter. 

We are,, gathering a few examples of beneficial mail covers which, if 
approved, will be Mr. Miller for- Ms use in this matter. 




J 3 i ^ lvfEt > STATES GOVERI^^NT FBI autoioltic de class ifigat 



DATE 08-07-2010 


date: 6/21/62 

cc Mr. Belmont 
Mr. Sullivan 
Mr. Svans 
Mr. Rosen 


of the Post Office Department, 


FROM A. H. Belmont 

subject: mail COVERS 

(Inquiry received by 
Post Office Department 
from Senator Long) 

Chief Inspector Moni^gue, ^ 

called me this, afternoon. is a close contact of the Bureau, . 

through v/hom v/e handle highly classified program^ of the^Rure^ {JUv^/ 
requiring Post Office assistance. ^ 

Inspector Montague said he v/anted to apprise us of a 
situation which ai'ose as a result of .articles by Attorney Sdwafd 
BennetirWiaiams in the Saturday^Svening Post. He said Williams 

covers and took a position gainst mail 
covers as a;=viola;tion of civil rights. He said this was an 
opportunistic statement by Y/illiams, because at one time Williams 
v/as on the other side of the fence--he v/as in favor of mail covers. 

» • 

* 'A newspaper reporter on the St. Louis Dispatch picked up 
the statement by Y/illiams and has been malcing inquiry as tp how, 
many mail covers there are, and by v/hat agencies. Tlie Post Office 
*'gave him short shrift, and he went to Senator Long of Missouri, v/ho 
^ has v/ritten to the Postmaster General asking for the, statutory 
authority whereby the Post Office places mail covers; the sniles 
and regulations relative thereto- promulgated by the Post Office- 
Department; the number of such mail covers now in existence, and 
the total that were placed in 1961 and 1960. Mr. Hont^e said 
that Senator Long is up for re-election this Fall and is probably 
looking for publicity. 

Mr. Montague said that the Post Office Department had been 
'in touch with Assistant AG "Jack" Miller of the Justice Department, 
relative to the reply to be afforded Senator Long, and the reply 
will be shown to AAG Miller before it goes to Senator Long! Mr. 
Montague said that the Post Office Department does not plan to 
furnish any statistics as to the number of mail covers to Senator 
Long, but v/ill, of course, advise the Senator of the statutory 
authority and the regulations of the Post O^ice l^partoent 
pertaining to mail covers, X "" 

HEREIfi IS b'!^CrjV5SlFIED,t- 



145 17 1962 o 2_.j.jgg2 

i 8 JUlSs 196 Z 


' Mr, Tolson 

Ur. Montague feels that it is important, because of the 
security aspects of certain programs worked out with the Post 
Office' Department by the 2?BI and other ^encies (CIA) , that 
Senator Long be steered correctly on this matter so that it 
does not blossom into a publicity campaign. Therefore, he plans 
to deliver the Post Office reply to Senator Long personally and 
explain to him the value of mail covers which are used in cases 
involving fugitives from justice, racketeers, and cases involving 

[ important security matters; in viev/ of our interest, Kontague 
v;anted to know whether v/e would like to have someone go along 
with him to further impress Senator Long. 




. I told Mr. Montague that my first reaction was that if the 

FBI has someone accompany the Post Office representative, it would 
lend importance to this inquiry and v/ould increase the possibility 
of publicity, rather than decrease it. He said it was possible 
that AAG Miller would accompany the Post Office representative 
in talking to Senator Long. I told him this would be a better idea. 

1 Montague said he would like for us to think this over 

and he would be in touch with us again before the ansv/er was sent 
to Senator Long, and he would also be in touch with AAG Miller. 

I told Mr. Montague that the FBI uses this technique of 
mail covers very sparingly . and that we require that headquarters 
pass on every mail cover; that we do not allov/ our field offices 
to place them without headquarters concurrence. He said that 
the Post Office had made a quick check and noted that the FBI 
did use this technique sparingly and, as a matter of fact, h ad 


dbcxeased-th'e'Tiumb'ef^o'fnnia'iT^ve^ in r ecent years 
^•sli^d~tTie'same'nv^^^ of 6t'Her~agencies , 

Revenue . the armed services, et ceter 
have ^0 mail covers in secu r ity c ases 

crimi'naT cases--!? fu^tives 

5^ J 



such as Internal 
(At the present time we 
and 32 mail covers in^ 

racketeers .) 

Bennett William: 


Vie are cS^l^^ th^ ’Sdward* Bennett Williara^articles to 
see exactly what reference he made to mail covers. Thereafter 
I think v/e should see AAG Miller and point out to him the very 
limited use the Bureau makes of this technique. He should point 






*Mr. Tolson 

out to Miller that if anyone accompanies the Post Office representative 
to see Senator Long, it v/ould be better for the Depertraent to handle 
this, as the Department is in a position to talce up any court 
kiecisions which have upheld the legality of the use of mail covers. 

ks this is a matter strictly netween us 

and the Post Office^^partment^ I 

Following our discussion v/ith AAG Miller, we will advise 
Mr. Montague accordingly. 




1 lit, Reddy 

llfi J, Walter Yeagley June 26, 1962 

Assistant Attorney General 

Director^ FBI 


Reference iA mdc to ny letter dated .June 20, 

1962. regarding the .interest taken bjr the Seattle Chapter 
of the Anorican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in defending , 
Burt Gale Helson in connection tfith his forthcooing hearing 
before the Subversive. Activities Control Board relating 
to his failure to register under the Internal Security 
Act of 1950. 


Oh luno 21. 1962, the confidential inf ormnt 
who has been identified to the Departnent as (Seattle) 
advised that according to Helson, the national headquarfera 
of the ACKJ does not want to be “red baited" and has 
instructed its Seattle 'Chapter not^po allow any Seattle 
ACLU officer to becoise involved in Welsdn's case* As a 
result, the Seattle Chapter of the ACLU will still furnish 
an attorney for Kelson but the attonioy will he "ifwsi an 
ACKJ cenber." . 

Kelson further indicated to "4K" that: the 
Interest of the Seattle Chapter of the ACLU in his case 
iras based oh the desire of the ACLU to defeat the UcCarran 
Act and because the ACLU does hot ^fant anyone inprisohed' 
for his "political" beliefs. 








Belcnont - y 

W ^ 

CallohoTIZS;. ^ 
-ttad jS2!2^ 




date: June 




In line with the article appearing in the 6-16-^ issue 
of the "Saturday Evening Post, *' written by -Edward Bennet'MYilliains. , 
V/ashington, D, C., attorney and Bureau antagonist, in which it is 
alleged that the Federal Government v/illfully withheld evidence 
(meaning FBI Laboratory Examiner Charles A* Appel’s findings) in 
connection with the trial of Kathryn Kelly in 1933, this is to 
advise that we are reviev/ing extensive files at the Seat of 
Government and a search is being made at Oklahoma Cijty. 

I thought you should know these preliminary facts with 
reference to the above matter* It is recalled that Charles F. 

Urschel had been kidnaped on 7-22-33 from his home at Oklahoma City 
and held for $200,000 ransom* He was subsequently released 
unharmed and prosecution of "Machine Gun" Kelly, his wife Kathryn, 
and others involved initiated in U* S* District Court, Oklahoma City* j 
During the trial of six of the .subjects and prior to the apprehension j 
of the two Kellys, two letters^ were received, one by Urschel and \ 

another directed to a Oklahoma newspaper threatening the lives of 
Urschel and his family* These letters bore the thumbprint of 
"Machine Gun" Kelly and were signed George R* Kelly* 

With reference to these letters, a handwriting examination 
was conducted by D, C* Patterson, a Oklahoma City handwriting. 

.expert, now deceased, who testified during the trial of Kathryn 
Kelly on October 10 and- 11, 1933, that she had prepared both letters* 
These letters did not bear directly on the charge of conspiracy to 
kidnap for which Kathryn Kelly was charged and it is not known why 
.the Government chose to introduce these extraneous threatening letters. 

Bureau files indicate that FBI Laboratory Examiner Charles A, 
Appel, who conducted examinations of the same handwriting specimens 
on September 23, and October 3, 1933, which was prior to the trial, 
was unable to-make, a, p ositive finding* The text of his reports are 
5 set forth below* 

1 - Laboratory. 

1 - Administrative Division 
HAS: JAC;mal>,«.4 , A 


\f / K . i > _ f /* « 


"102 JUL 

Memorandum to Mr, Belmont 


Laboratory report 9-23-33 : * 

“The handwriting on the letters to the Oklahomian -and 
to Urschel is not identical with that of Mrs. Kelly. 

♦ There are a great many similarities which, on casual 

examination would lead one to think that these .. 

handwritings are the same. Hov/ever, detailed analysis ^ \ 
indicates that Mrs. Kelly did jiot write these letters. | 
The handwriting in the -letters is not to any great ‘ v 
extent disguised or changed from normal as far as I 
can tell, and the same is true of the handwriting of 
I Mrs. Kelly. - 

“A comparison of the signatures of George R. Kelly on 
three fingerprint cards with those on these letters 
' indicates that he -may have written these letters. I 
do not consider the signatures sufficient to definitely 
state that he did write the letters but they are sufficient 
to indicate that he might have done so. If additional 
■specimens of George R. Kelly's handwriting are 'obtained, 
further comparison may >be made. The original letters are 
being examined for latent fingerprints." 

Laboratory report 10-3-33: (This examination was of a. 
letter addressed to Mr. Keenan under signature of 
Kathryn Kelly.), 

"The handwriting is that of Mrs. Kathryn Kelly. 

Photographs of the letter were made and were mostly 
used in this examination as the original was not left 
in the laboratory long enough to be used. 

"From the wording of this letter it would appear that 
Mrs. Kelly might have written the letter to the 
Oklahoman newspaper and to Mr. Urschel. I am still 
, I of 'the opinion that she did not v/rite these letters." 

\ No information can be located at this time indicating 

jthe Laboratory report of 10/3/33 was forwarded Oklahoma City^. 




Memorandum to Mr* Belmont 


i From a review of the above results of examination it 

is obvious that Appel was vacillating as to the results of his 
examination and, accordingly, there would appear to be no question 
as to why Appel did not testify at the trial. There is no 
\} indication this information was ever furnished the Department or 
\ Joseph B, .Keenan, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, who 
I presented the Government’s case at the trial. Likewise, Oklahoma City 
fi files do not indicate the U. S, Attorney’s Office was advised in 
I writing of Appel’s findings, 


In view of the fact that our search so far of Bureau 
files would indicate Appel’s ambiguous conclusions were not known 
ito anyone outside of the Bureau, Oklahoma City has been, instructed 
;to thoroughly review its files to determine the identity of all 
personnel having access to these facts. 

It should be noted that a review had been conducted by 
the Oklahoma City Office subsequent to ]^thryn Kelly’s filing a 
motion to vacate sentence on 3rl9-58, when she alleged among other 
things that she had inadequate counsel, denied a fair and impartial 
trial, subjected to threats and duress and' false testimony presented 
by the > Government, On 6-9-58, a hearing was held in U, S, District 
Court, Oklahoma City, and the Government refuted all allegations. 
District Court Judge ordered all files and reports of the FBI 
arising out of the Urschel kidnaping be delivered for court 
examination under the Jenclcs Decision, The Government interposed 
Department Order 3229 and the court then sustained motions for nev/ 
trial, I&thryn Kelly was released from custody on 6-16-58 on 
$10,000 appeal bond and is still free on this bond. as of this date. 

The decision of the district court was reversed by the 
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on 7-27-59 and the case remanded 
back to district court. Kelly filed a petition of certiorari with 
the U, S, Supreme Court and this petition was denied 2-29-60. The 
district court then- indicated tentative plans to resume hearings 
1 on the original motion but on 6-24-60 the judge died in an automobile 
1 accident and to date no further court action has been taken. 

) Every effort is being made to determine how, Y^illiams 

became aware of the above information, including the identity of the 
FBI examiner. 


- 3 - 


V ^ 



Memorandiira to l!r, Belmont 


Agent [ 

It should be no ted in this regard that former SpeciaD. 

[who was assigned to the Oklahoma City 

Office during 1960 and 1961, has utilized the services of V/illiams’ 
Washington law firm in connection with his unfounded claims against 
the Bureau and this is being taken into consideration as' possibly 
Williams* source of information. 

1 / 

- 4 - 




g Sn 


AVilliams Cites Long-Withheld Evidence 
About Maeliinc-gim Kelly’s Wife 

Evidence is a precious thing. It can be the key that frees the innocent | 

UnfortuSy ft also can be blindly overlooked or willfully withheld. , 

When lhal occurs, justice suffers. • ; 

Inonecasewith which I am familiar, a woman spent ‘wcnty-fiveycare , 

in prison, convicted in a trial in which evidence which might have freed 
her was withheld by the Federal prosecution. ^ j i-- j 

The woman happened to be the wife of a notorious outlaw kid* 

naper, George (MaSiine-gun) Kelly. But no matter, who her husband ^ 
was, she was entitled to a fair trial. She did not receive one. ^ 

Even today the Federal Government continues to withhold the evi- . 

denwin question. The full facts of Mrs. Kathryn Kelly’s case never be- 
fore have been published. Here they are: . ! 

Kelly and his wife were tried in Oklahoma City in 1 933 for the kid- 
naping of aarles F. Urschel, a multimillionaire oilman. Kelly denied ^ , 
nothing. Mrs. Kelly vigorously protested her innocence. She said her , 
husband forced her to accompany hm and that she could i 

It was brought out at the trial that the actual kidnaping was ^one by | 

two men, one armed with a machine gun, who invaded Urschel s home | 

and dragged him away from a bridge pme. He was blindfolded and j 
driven for twenty-four hours to a farmhouse^here he was held eight j 
days. He was released upon payment of a $200,000 ransom. j 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, dramatically using its investi- 
gative techniques to best advantage, was able to locate the farmhouse ^ , 

Sough Urschel’s remarkably retentive memory. He remembered hear- 
ing aftlinere pass overhead at 9:45 a.m. and 5;45 p.m. every day except 
one, when there was a heavy storm. The FBI checked and found an air- 
line which xvas forced to detour its fli^t that day because of a storin. i 
The route passed over the farm of Mr. and Mrs. R. G. Shannon, 

man in the kidnaping, were quickly arrested While ‘J® 
search for Kelly, the group was placed on trial. Two days later Urschel 
and a local newspaper received letters postmarked Chicago, threatening 
dire reprisals if the Urschels testified and insisting that the group was 
innocent. George and Kathryn Kelly were arrested soon afterward at 

^^AUhe’ trial of the two Kellys the prosecution offered damaging evi- - 

dence against her. A local handwriting expert testified that she had ^ 

signed tL two threatening letters. “I did not !” she testified. She insisted , 

her husband had signed them. Mrs. Kelly’s lawyer tor a recess so 
that he could obtain another handwriting expert to testify on the signa- 

lures. The reouest was denied. , . 

Counsel for Mrs. Kelly concentrated on trying to convince the jury 
that she was coerced by her husband, much against ber will into par- 
ticipating in the crime. She took the stand and asserted that she had 
beffied her husband to release Urschel when she found out about the | 
kidnaping. She testified that Kelly told her it was none of lb^l busi- | 

I ness” and that he would kill Urschel if no ransom were paid^^e ju^ | 

■ "evicted her along with Kelly. Both received life sentences. Kelly died h 

in tte Lcaveawflrth.penitentiarv in 1954. 

Articae in the Saturday Evening Post, 6/16/62 
by Edv/ard Bennett Vfilliams 

Jill *10 lav. 


-4 «• 


* Mrs. Kelly remained in prison from 1933 until her case was reopened 

in 1958. An attorney new to the case then argued that her trial was unfair 
and that she should have been permitted to bring in another handwriting | 

I expert to give his views. 1 

' The Federal judge wlio heard this argument ordered the prosecution \ 
to produce the twenty-tive-ycar*old records of the case so that he could J 
ascertain whether there was substance to the defense’s* claims. The De- 
partment of Justice refused to produce the files. Thereupon the judge set 
aside Mrs. Kelly’s conviction and freed her on bond pending a new trial. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for th^ Tenth Circuit later reversed this 
ruling and sent the case back to the lower court for a continuation of the 
hearing before that court. 

Although considerable time has passed, at this writing there has been 
no hearing. Perhaps the reason is that the FBI had in its possession in 

1 I 1933, during KatB^n Kelly’s trial, evidence that she had not signed the 

letters in question, Charles A. Appel, the FBI’s top handwriting analyst 
at the time, examined the letters and concluded that the signatures were 
«(?/ those of Kathryn Kelly, but might very well have been written by 
'Cteorge Kelly. 

This evidence was kept from the juty that tried Kathryn Kelly. If the « 
jury had known that the local handwriting expert was wrong, according 
to the FBI’s own ex^rt, and that Mrs. Kelly was undoubtedly telling the 
\ truth when she denied signing the letters, the verdict might have been 
different. This, of course, can be small consolation for twenty-five years 
in prison. 

But the most disturbing facet of the case is that this evidence was not 
even disclosed in the 1958 hearing. Instead, the Government chose to 
keep the file closed and forget 

This case therefore is a classic example of the need for a change in 
pretrial procedures to give the defense a fair opportunity to discover the 
' evidence confronting it. If Mrs. Kelly had known in advance that ai hand- 

writing expert would testify, she might have obtained another expert to 

1i challenge his testimony. If she had known that the FBI’s own expert had ^ 
concluded after extensive analysis that she had not signed the letters^ she 
could have called him as a witness. But the procedure of combat by sur- 
prise had dealt a lethal blow to her chance to defend herself. 



Hr, J, Walter Ycaglcy 
Assistant Attorney Gonoral 

1 - Ifi:*. Eeddy 

iTuno 20, 1962 

Director, EDI 





O i 

On Jane 13, 1962, the source Tiho tias hcon 
identified to the Bopartcont as 4K (Seattle) advised that 
the Seattle Chapter of tho Accrican Civil liherties JOnioa 
(ACm) has apparently heen authorized hy its national 
headquarters to provide legal counsel for Burt Gale Kelson* 
Wolson is one of the ten functionaries of tho Conianist 
Party, USA, tdiose registration as a Party tocEiher under 
Section 13 of the Ihtemal Security , Act of 1950 has heen 

requested hy the Subversive Activit ies Control Board* 

Kelson^s attorney TfiU allegedly hc | ^ I 

of the Seattle lav flm of SchTooter and Earris* 

According to the source Kelson recently mi . 
with several of the Executive Board ceiahhis of tho Seattle 
Chaster of the ACIB and was advised that the ACLB will 
stand tho expense of defending Kelson and docs hot desire 
the Coasunist Party to collect funds for Kolson’^s defense. 









On Juno 14, 1962, the sane source reported that 
one of the attorneys of tho Seattle Chapter of tho ACMT 
told Kelson that legal natters pertaining to Kelson’s 
case which Arise in Washington, C*, will ho handled hy 
the attorney “who defended tho lato Senator Joseph McCarthy 
and who had a recent article in the ’Saturday Eveninff Post*’" 
Althbuah the nacO of this individual vas not nontioned^ 
the ohvioiis rcfefcnco was to Washington, B* C*, attorney 
Edward Bennettniilliacs i 



1- - 100-7057 (ACIB) 


^ JUt 29 1962 

KOITE OK YELL(Kf: Classified "Confidential” inasnuch as unauthorized 
d'iscloS'uFe'br The Inf creation could reyeal the source and 
adversely affect the national defense* Ihe source is^ 

54JUL 61962 





V. ^ 

P . V 

O^nOMAl fotji NO. 10 







Mr. DeLoach 



date: *5-28-62 


SUNDAY, MAY 27, 1962, 9:00 



Captioned program was monitored by an Agent of the Crime' Records 
Division. Susskind's guesb for the evening were Washington, D.*C. , Attorney Edward 
I Bennett Williams; New York City Attorney Louis Waldman; New York City Attorney ‘ 
and former assistant Uv Si Attorney for the Southern District of New York, 

C. Dickerman Williams, and writOf Gus Tyler. 


The subject of the evenings discussion was wire tapping, Edward Bennett 
Williams stated that he agreed with former UT. S. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes 
that wire tapiping was "a dirty business. " He stated it is against the Federal law and 
that the FBI has been constantly violating this Federal law for 25 years. C. Dickermaik 
Williams defended the Bureau by pointing out that Edward Bennett William^ statement \ 
was his (Edward Bennet^Williams) opinion, and that the FBI had engaged in no wire 
tapping until they-were advised"!^ then U. S. Attorney General Jackson it was proper / 
to do so under certain circumstances. Edward Bennett Williams stated that the only \v 
time he believed wire tapping would be justified would be in the event national security v 
was threatened. He stated that this condition had never been shown. In addition, ^ 
Edward Bennett Williams read the following quote of the Director, without identifying 
it in context or in point of time: "While I concede that the telephone tap is from time ^ 
to time of limited value in the criminal investigative field, I frankly and sincerely 

believe that if a statute of this kind were enacted the abuses arising therefrom would farf 
outweigh the value which might accrue to law enforcement as a whole. " Edward Bennet^ 
Williams stated that he had never heard of the Director going before congress and 
repudiating this statement.’ C.' Dickerman Williams then pointed out that the Director \ 
made this statement prior to Attorney General Jackson's ruling which permitted wire ^ 
tapping by the Bureau under certain limited circumst^ces . (The quotation abovfe " 
is from the DirectoVsstatement in. March, 1939, opposing a bill ' .pending in Congress | 









‘i" w 


• Mr. DeLoach: 

Re?^NE MAN'S FREEDO^-^lfSf^^t''^® '^j 




MrC CSwgJiatr 

^Ir. Conrad 
Mr. DeLoacJl^ 
Mr. Evans 

Mr. Malone 

Mr. Rosen i 

Mr. tuUivax^^ 
Mr. Tavel 

Mr. Trotter 

Tele. Room 

Miss Holmes 

Miss Gandy 

ASAC Joe Schmil telephoned this morning at 9:30 i^w^hile you-WOTe in 
conference to furnish information regarding our inquiry of Saturday, 7-14r62. ’We asked 
Schmit to advise if there was any substance to the comment made by Wiiliams in his book 
to the effect that on one occasion after talking to his client, Igor Melekh, he bumped into an 

FBI Agent on-Madisoh AVenue in New York implying that we had been surveilling Melekh. 


- On ijovember 4^ 196i^whileiMelekh was being released on bail. New Yorkil 
sent a teletype to the Bureau ^yingllgwoulffi ppt conduct a full time physical surveillance ^ 
on Melekh and that-sources wopl^be-tdevefeg^ which couljl furnish informaition regarding]!^ 
his activities. Imaddition, the^N^ ’^rk itoybillancedog shows that on November 17thj ^ 
after being advised that Melekly^lamiM to -J^ye from^he Alrae> Hotel, , ,37 East 64th i 

- -Street, a sujigreillsfice was conducted ^pm 1(1:45 a.m. to 1:22 p. m. on that>^te, during 
which time Melekh was observe^ to move to ^e Coliseum Hotel, 228' West 71st Street. ^ 
No incident occurred during this-surv^llancet S 

Schmit said New York would have had no occasion to conduct surveillance j 
i on Melekh at anyUher time since the Bimeau had previously been advised thafe 
no such coverage of Melekh would be made. He' stated Williams was n'^ engaged by ^ 

1 Melekh until after he was released on bail. According*-to Schmit this*contact%ith an '' 

FBI Agent could not have happened. 

l\^l - Mr. DeLoach 
[ 4 - Mr. Jones 


M. A. Jones 


0'B:ear a 


\3 JUL 30 196^-^ XEROX 
*\ ^ 25 1862 



ofnoMAi tom NO. to 



Vi . }T 




Mr. DeLoach 


M. A., 


WRC-TV, 11:30 P, M. , , JULY 16, 1562 

On the evening of July 16 ._19.62.- me>^o^hP* show of It h e National 
Broadcasting Company-networ k had as- its host Miss Arlen^Francis. The 
WasEington outlet was WRC-TV, Channel 4. ' £3^- 

The usual guests were trotted out by Miss Francisr^od.Steiger, 
an actor who bragged of his ,5 years under psychoanalysis; A1 Cap^* c^oonist 
,(Lil* Abner) and news. columnist; Will Jord^, comedian; and annomicer Hugh Dpyms. 

- 4 

Toward the end of the . evening, host Francis introduced the piece de 
resistance, Edward Bennett. WiUiaihs, noted attorney and critic o'f^the FBI. 

Williams* noble cause for the.evening was the hustUng^i sali^ 

for his new bpok,”One M^* s Freedom. *’ ‘”it* s absolutely thrilBng, ** .gushei^^ 

Miss Francis. Williams has improved since his last performai^e; he"^o ldhge*£ / 
faintly praises .the FBI before attacking us. Off on his favorite stibjec1^f **^i^) ( 
tappingl last night, . Williams argued agamst the A ttorney General^^rt^se^,^ 
legislation on. this subject, stating that there had never been a dempnstrgjlon 
that spiesj saboteims or tr^tors could.l)e.cai:^ht by the employm^'of this 
technique'; Williams asserted that, in the Coplon>case the. Court of Appeal^' reversed the 
the verdict because •the.”FBI had invaded the attorney-client. relatidxisM^,” 




‘For information. 

1 - Mr. DeLoach 


( 4 ) 


/ ' 



•jVIs fOtM NO. 10 

^ lOlTIOM 





TO : Ur. Belmont 



J. H. Gal 


Our inquiries conducted under' the Criminal Intelligence 
Program have revealed that major American hoodlums v^henAConfirpnted 
: with possible prosecutive ■ activity against them by the Bureaii^or " 
other Federal agencies are turning to EdwardCBenhett Williams, 
i Washington, D. C., attorney, to represent .%hem in their difficulties 
[with the law^ - / ' ’ , 

Over the past three years, Williams has represented, among 
other major criminal personalities, the following individuals who are 
actively engaged as leaders of La Cosa Nostra, or who -are closely 
-affiliated with this nationwide or^nization, , • 

Williams has successfully represented Frank' Costello of 
New^York in-cbportation proceedin’^ against Costello.. ‘ 

- ‘ . > ‘ ^ j . 

WiJiiams handled the appeal from the narcotics conviction 
I of Vito Genovese, 'Iboss*' of the Genovese^ .“family”* of -La Cosa Nostra, 
in'^ the ^gumehts before the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme 
I, Court. The Supreme Court finally, this year, affirmed the conviction 
of Genovese, who is currently incarcerated at Leavenworth Penitentiary, 
serviri^'.a 15-year sentence. 

In the bank robbery case involving[ 

<• ^ 

La Cosa Nostra member “Charlie the Blade” Tourine, W illiams mana ged 
to have the Justice Department drop the case against I I 

~l is the same individual, 'whc^ with Marshall^ ^if ano, Chicago 
La Cosa cNostra mem ber, endeavored to extort money frOTi millionaire 
gambler p | in Las Vegas^ Nevada, and was successfully tried anvj^g 

convicted for this offense by the Government following a Bureau ^hic 
investigation. ^ 

Williams has, also successfully defended “Milwaukee Phil” 
Alderisio in an extortion trial "held in Miami., Florida, late last , year* 
Alderisio is one of the- top’ La Cosa Nostra members of the Chicago 
underworld. In April* of 1965, Williams ,was’. attorney in th*e extortion 
trial ^the l^feau ^agaiiislt. Alderisio, Ruby Kolod and “Willie” 
Alderman.’ This tHalf'resulted in a, c6nvic^<^ of th^^three ^ 

— Mr. 

— Mr. 

— Mr. 

Me Andrews 

I 03M 

Uemorandum to Mr* Belmont 
Re: Edvard Bennett Williams 

I individuals, , WUliams,. during the trial, allegedly represented 
exclusively Ruby' Kolod of the Desert ihn^ Nevada, but cojifidential 
information obtained over our highly confidential. sources’‘h'as 
; indicated, that Williams also^toolc .an active- part in: preparing 
Alderisio*s defense in this case-, 

, * Within the past indnth, Williams has become attorney 

representing '’commission!' member Samuel Giancana Of. La Cbsa Nostra 
with reference to his forthcoming appearance before the Federal ^and 
jury ini the/Sputhern District; of New-Ybrk,; Unquestionably when 
Giancana is' served with "another subpoena to appear before the Chicago 
^and jury later this month,, Williams will also represent him in this 
proceedihgi f - \ 

Several of, the 'Las Ve^s gambling casinos, with connections 
with the Chica^go, New York j Miami and West Coast {undej^orld are 
represented by Williams,^ In various procee.dings before grand^, juries 
and the like^ .Willihm^ his been retained aS; either counsel or 
assistant counsel .by representatives of the Sinds^ Desert Inn and 
Stardust Ho^iels of Las Ve^s, He currently represents Ed Levinson 
of. the Fremont Hotel in the civil suit-filed by/Levinson ;and the 
Fremont against thi Central ^Telephone- Company of Nevada., These 
hotels have -close connections with La Cosa- Nostra in that funds 
skimlned irbm the hotels are being .funheled to members of. this 
organization in 'Florida, New York j New Jersey and California; , 

Williams also represented Joseph "Do;c" ;;Stacher= in the 
Internal Revenue Service case, which resulted in St acher entering ja> 
guilty plea and voluntarily 'accepting deportation in lieu of ai prison 
' sentence, Stacher is the notorious: West Coast, hoodlum, who, although 
not a member of La Cosa Nostra; is closely associated with the 
leaders of that org^nizatibh; in particul^ Gerardp Catena,'^ acting 
"boss" of the. Genovese "family" of La Cosai Nostra,; - ( 

I In addition to the above, Williams successfully represented 

Jimmy Hof fa in a 1957 bribery trial of Hoff a held in Washington, D, C, 

The above represents a summary of the. more import a;nt hoodlums 
represented' by Williams over the past' few years. It would clearly 
indicate that Williams is more and more becoming the La Cosa Nostra 
defense attorney, Williams,, of. course, has many other clients and . 

‘ occupies himself with participation ip: many bar association committees, 
where he is deeply involved in matters' pertaining to law> ehf orcemen-t.. 

As a result of his efforts as a, defense attorney representing some pf* 
the major hoodlums in the United States, it can be safely assumed 

' -t' ;t 

Memorandum, to Mr* Belmont 
Re: Edvard Bennett Williams' 

in any redirection of criminal lav considered by bar association 
groups Williams will stand beside those elements attempting to 
restrict law enforcement activities* 

In. the .forthcoming appearance of Giancana before the grand 
jury in Chicagbi scheduled now for the middle of May,., 1965 ^ it will 
undoubtedly become public knowledge that Williaib represents Giancana, 
one of the most notorious of the leaders of La Cosa Nostra-* This 
public knowledge may provide an opportunity for friendly news 
representatives to identify Williams for yrhat he is, as a i^uthpiece 
for La Cosa Nostta* y. / 


It is recommended that favorable considteratiph be afforded 
to utilization of friendly news media to properly identify Williams 
in the public mind as a' mouthpiece' for La‘ Cpsa ‘*No'stra, when 
appropriate opportunity presents itself to do sp*;- * 

- 3 

o^nONM roM h>o. it 
mat 1142 (DITION 
6 Sa CtM. NO« 21 


* M 


; Hr ♦ B(^lip'nt 

J. H. Gal 

pATEi. March 17, 19^. 

Toteoft — 
Mnohl . 
Mo^r „ 
Cospcr . 

\T(ot(tr «_ 
vTcIc. Room . 


Gondy »_ 





William Hundley of the Organized Crime and Racketeering sec^i^pifi' 

! of the Department called this afte^obn to confidentially advise that * 
he had learned from Edward BennettM7illiams that Vailiams intends to 
move to suppress the. Government’s evidence in the captioned Extortion, 
case, which is now scheduled to come to trial on March 29, 1965, • 

According to Hundley, Williams maintains that prior microphones; | 
: coverage of the Desert Inn constituted a violation of the Attorney- 
J.cii^nt relatio nship in that Ruby TColod, defendant in this m attery was §;; 
represented bv l - - the Deserter i; 

’inn, who is also an attorney. ' . 

Hundley was advised that there was no basis in fact for this fef. 
contention by Williams and that all the Bureau’s evidence concerning 'fc i; 
this Extortion violation was obtained by investigation and .through § p; 

live informants. Hundley was also informed that this Bureau had never ^ <i 
obtained any information concerning this matter through confidential 
I coverage of the Desert Inn. . Our confidential coverage of the Desert Inn jj 
jwas terminated on August 23, 1963, and we received the complaint ih. the 
Kolod matter on October 11, 1963. r 

Hundley was informed that, in addition to the fact t hat there J j 
is no tainted information on this matter in Bureau files, that | ~] f i 

has admitted to Bureau Agents that -he did not represent Ruby Koiod in 
this matter, and, therefore, Williams’ contention of violation of 14 

attorney-client relationship was false from this additional standpoint.^! 

By way of background, this case came to the Bureau’s attention 
in October of 1963, when Robert Sunshine, accompanied by his attorney, I-: 

contacted our Denver Office’ and informed that office that he had been fe 

threatened by ’’Milwaukee Phil” Alderisio and Araerico DePietto, Chicago |f 
hoodlums, over a debt allegedly owed by Sunshine to Las Vegas gambler || 

Israel Alderman and Ruby Kolod, an official of' the Desert Inn in Las rj 

Vegas, The debt "bertai^ed to oil investments by Kolod and Alderman |;; 

1 - Mr. DeLoach f 

1 - Mr. Belmont, a. NOT RSCpRPEPi.M-c . A'” I' 

f • ‘i \ 

1 - Mr. Gale_^^ V 102 MAR 2*11965 ' 

1 - Mr, Stofanak — — ' C 

iroAfVp.i ' 



C 0 



Memorandum to ilr. Belmont 
.Re; Ruby Kolod, EtAl.^ j 

/with Sunshine, which investments proved unproductive. When Sunshine 
(xpjXld not repay Kolod and Alderman, he was visited by DePietto and 
^adermah>nd threatened with bodily harm unless he paid the debt, 
AiThd^'^me have we received any information over any confidential 
sources having any bearing on this matter. 

Hundley stated that this was obviously a, tactic, by 17illiams 
I to try to inject the discovery of the microphones in Las Vegas into 
this matter. , In this connection, it will be recalled that iii the 
civil suit brought by a Las Vegas casino against the Central Telephone 
Company of Nevada, that telephone- company admitted its confidential 
relationship with this Bureau, which resulted, in subpoenas of our 
Las Vegas personnel to also .give depositions in that matter. The action^j 

of the telephone company followed a leak of confidential information 
from our reports by Department personnel, after dissemination of those 
reports to the Department, j^ove to 

According to Hundley, the Department intends t^ quash 'the 
subpoenas to Bureau personnel in the Las Vegas matter if T^iTliaras 
persists, in going through with taking of depositions frbm our personnel 
there, which depositions are now scheduled for May 14, 1965, The 
Department also, according to Hundley, contemplates opposing V/illiaras 
efforts in Denver on the Kolod matter by indicati ng to the court that 
there was no attorney-client relationship between I I 

of the Desert Inn and Ruby Kolod, and that no information had ever 


been obtained by the Government in the Kolod matter from other than 
live informants, investigative activity and' the statement of the victim 
Robert Sunshine, 





This matter is being followed! closely and all pertinent 
developments will be brought to your attention- The Las Vegas and 
Denver Offices are aware of the foregoing,. 


OPrioNAi roiM NO. lo 
S4AV 1963 lOITtON 
CSA CfN. ItC. NO. 37 




Mr. Felt 


^MoJi r 
Do Loach ' 
CollahanL' — . 
Corrjij — . 




FROM : H. L. Edward 




Committee met Saturday, 3-6-65, 

: Jj 


Chairman Judge Austin’s chambers, Chicago. Besides all members, James Vorenberg, 
Director, Office of. Criminal Justice, attended. Decisions made re topics and priorities ^ 
for police function study. 

Austin said Committee would not duplicate studies of other groups in police field;;^'^ 
but would try to have voice in their recommendations. In line with this. Committee decide 
to exclude pre-arraignment topics which Vorenberg said he is handling under American § 
Law Institute (ALI) study with view to developing model code for states. Vorenberg agr^^c 
to maice Austin Committee advisory group to ALI study. Edward Benn etlRyilliams then'^ 
recommended excluding recruitment, qualifications, training and tenure of police, saying 
he and most of Committee could contribute little to this. Over my strong objections, supg 
ported by Judge George Edwards, New York Police Commissioner Murphy, and Chairm« 
Austin, Committee defeated Williams and gave high priority to this topic with understand 
ing that Committee will not duplicate studies or work done by FBI, International Associ^ 
tion of Chiefs of Police, or others, I gave Committee details of FBI police training andg 
Director’s long fight to professionalize police. , ^ ^ g 

Austin’s Committee next decided to give priority tolvdr'eftapping and eavesdroppfiii 
in view of widespread indications criminals use these tooliO^arid local law enforcement has 
been unable to get clear-cut authority. Williams proposed including mail covers; others 
wanted Polygraph added; Committee agreed. Committee deferred study of publicity in 
criminal cases since special American Bar Association committee already handling this. 

• In discussing whether Committee should consider problems facing police through 

inability to prosecute certain cases which prosecutors or judges might decline to enter- 
||ltain, iMurphy made what I consider ill-advised statements in saying he didn’t think local 
1 11 police'-had any problems with prosecutors. Murphy s aid h e_considers self chief law en- 
i\| forj^ement officer in New^York City and although 5 district attorneys and some judges try 
|) to tell him and police how to run their business he and his men pay no attention. It seeme< 
’ I] to me Murphy hurt law enforcement’s image because Director for years has preached nee 
' y for cooperation and greater understanding between police, prosecutors, judges and public 
and Murphy’s pompous statement created impression police are sacrosanct; Murphy mad< 
another statement indicating that prior to present,, strict requirementSj,,g^v.e;i^n,ing issuance 
] I of search warrants, police never bothered getting se&jfch warrants ex&^4‘pt^in ^^hdful of 
I cases and even then they didn’t worry about having basic inf ormation jpio w r e quir ed , Im- 
1 1* pression he^created was police had been ’’free wheeling" prior to Supreme Court's decisic 
Jpahd, in my apihifen, gave certain Committee members ammunition to show that Supreme 
H Court is fully justified in clamping down on police. I told Committee unquestibjh^^ly some 
KLEimbk (7) Enc. 1 - Mr. De Loach 1 - Mr. Casper 1 - Mr. Sullivan ‘ ' 

Memorandum to Mr. Felt 

Re: ABA Criminal Justice Advisory Committee on the Police Fimction; Initial Meeting 

'iprosecutors arbitrarily refuse to prosecute certain cases, some judges arbitrarily refuse 
i|to entertain some prosecutions, some police, prosecutors and judges are influenced or 
j cornapt, and some police don’t do a good job of making a prima facie case; whatever the 
Icause, we must face the problem and formulate guidelines for corrective action. 

Next Committee meeting probably April, 1965. In interim, staff members 
and individual committee members expected to do research and gather data, 


In view of importance of this study and demonstrated need to constantly protect 
our interest, I recommend we continue to actively and closely follow all phases of the 
police function study through membership in the Austin Committee, liaison with the 
American Law Institute study,' through Training Division’s liaison with the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police and through our connection with the President’s Crime 
Committee and the Office of Criminal Justice. 

/ ^ 

crr«ONAi ro(M no. 10 

' nil ini fOtiiON 
OSA 6IN^ tto. NO« }; 

“V 5010*100 







Mr, Felt 


DATE: ]^rch 8, 1965 


heret '' 



FROM : K. L. Edwards 



HroE!N$BWCIiA£?G:im^ /A^ 


Thisds summary of pertinent matters covered at first meeting of the Advisory's^ 
Committee on the Police Function (ACPF) which met all day Saturday, 3-6-6^ in chambers 
of U;S. District^ Court Judge Richard B. Austin, Committee Chairman. Committee had 100% 
membership attendance, including U. S. Circuit Court Judge George C. Edwards, Jr., * 
Edward. Bennfiti%iniams^ New York Police Commissioner Michael J. Murphy. Also at- ^ 
tending was Professor James Vorenberg, Director of the Office of Criminal Justice., 

:!^rposebf initial meeting was to decide topics for Committee’s study and setting! 
priorities fo^ same. Jcfdge Austin announced that in view of broad field to be covered the ^ 
Committee was adopting policy of avoiding duplication with other studies currently under ^ 
way, and wherever possible Committee would endeavor to effectuate coordination or liaiso^ 
with other studies in order to assure conclusions and recommendations resulting from sucffl 
studies would be harmonious with over-all minimum standards for criminal justice. Austu® 
jthen introduce^Vorenberg who announced that he and Herbert V/echsler of Columbia Law 
'School are in ^^.rge of an American Law Institute (ALI) study on pre-arraignment matters,^ 
objective is to develop a model code covering all matters from the first contact of the policb 
with suspect to the«arraignment stage. Model code wUl be submitted to states for proposed^ 
adoption to guide law enforcement in these matters. Vorenberg submitted outline of ALI 
project which covers (1) investigation of crime; (2) arrest; (3) initial disposition of arrested 
person(s); (4) commencement of proceedings; (5) preliminary hearing; (6) bail; (7) rules 
relating to interrogation, and (8) sanctions against police for violation of due process and 
like matters during investigation and arrest st^es. Vorenberg stated ALI study will ex- 
clude electronic interception (wire tapping and eavesdropping). Austin committee agreed to 
exclude matters being covered by Vorenberg study provided Austin committee was given 
complete opportunity to review and pass upon all conclusions and recomnaendations result- 
ing from All study in this area. Vorenberg agreed and has made all members of the Austin 
conunittee an advisory committee to the ALI study, stating that ALI will schedule a 3 -day 
meeting, probably in Washington, D. C., 6/3-5/65, to ry iew and discuss preliminary re- 
sults of ALI study. (p 

Austin committee next consider^%i|®^^^ouiaican8e3:K ifigelf with recruit- 
ment, qualifications, training and tenure WpmcdbfficVs. E^ard Bennett Williams pro- 
posed this entire subject be excluded stat ing that Austin co mmittee had o'niy^ e 2 q)erts in 
this area (Inspector H. L. Edwards, Commissioner Michael J. Murphy, and Judge Edwards 
formerly Detroit Police Commissioner) and Williams felt he and remainder of committee 
had nothing to contribute to the subject. I immediately took issue with contending | 

the need for emending, ai^o police was one of the primary recommen^rpis for the mmmir 

1 - ' 1 - '! v 

l;; Mr. Sullivan (CONTINUED^,^R) 



i ' ^ 

' • ‘r - ’ i 

0 Q i 

Memor.andum to Mr. Felt. ’ - . f 

Re: ABA Criminal Justice Advisory Committee on the Police Function; Initial Meeting 

standards study; that too many lawyers turn their bacics to problems besetting the police 
whereas the police had a crying need for understanding, assistance, and guidance in the i 

light of numerous court decisions which highlighted and strengthened the criminals* rights ! 

ait sacrificed and ignored the equally important rights of society and in many cases reflected! 
a total disregard of the problems facing the officer on the beat who was expected to enforce 
the law but found his hands tied when the case reached the court. -I told the Committee that 
in my opinion any lawyer with the national prominence Williams had as a defense criminal 
lawyer should certainly have something to contribute to guiding and helping the' police, Att 
this point V/illiams said, "You mean, Lynn, i ou want me to come over and join you people ?*’j 
to which I replied, "Yes, if you- think there is room for both of us. " I also pointed out 
everything the Bueau does in the way of leadership in police training through the FBI National 
Academy, field police training and law enforcement conferences; the consistent fight of the \ 
Director over the years to strengthen local law- enforcement, contribute to the professionali-i 
zation of the police, and his fight against a national police force, I pointed out this is a need | 
in which every lawyer should take a.n interest and certainly the ABA committee should lend 
its support to provide leadership in helping the police, contributing to increased public con- 
fidence, and one way they could help would be through providing minimum standards which |, 
would restore a proper balance between the rights of society and the criminal. Judge George 
Edwards strongly supported this viewpoint as did Commissioner Murphy, California Supreme 
bourt Chief Justice Roger J, Traynor, former ABA President David F , Maxwell, and after . 
further discussion the Committee agreed this area would be a most proper subject for the 
Committee’s study and m fact one deserving top priority. | 

As an interest aside, during luncheon Williams was needling Judge Edwards for | 
having supported me during the morning session, Willies said, "George, I can see where 
you have an’entirely different philosophy now that you are on the Circuit Bench. I always 
thought you would be a Judge before whom I could- bring a labor union case without hesitation 
but now I have 'grave doubts.’" To this, Judge Edwards replied, "Ed, I can see this is 
clever strategy on your part because if you make me ^eel that my philosophy in fact has 
changed I will want to lean over backwards if you ever/before me with a case so that I might 
prove to you that I haven’t changed. " Giving the devil his dues, the fact of the matter is that 
during the entire Committee meeting. Judge Edwards surprised me by strongly supporting 
all the help that could be given the police stating that during his 2 years as Detroit Police | 
Commissioner his eyes were opened to the fact that law enforcement needs all the help it 
can get. Judge Edwards stated that the Bureau has done an excellent job in providing leader- 
ship and pointing the way to the need for up-grading the qualifications and trailing for, the 
police but this is in fact a job for all segments of society to lend their support. 

Austin’s committee next decided to defer any study of entrapment, claiming this 
seldom was an issue in police actions. They decided to exclude search ^d* seizure and 
interrogation because of the ALI study. The Austin committee next decided to includd' 
electronic interception in its study and to give it a high priority because of the alleged need 
of law enforcement to obtain helpful clarification of their rights and responsibilities in this 
area and because of wide-spread indications that the criminal element now maizes extensive 
use of electronic devices to effectuate crimes and prevent detection.- Edward Bennett 
Williams said he was neutral on whether the Committee should get into wire tapping and 
'eavesdropping, but if it did, he felt Jt. should also include a study of mail covers and the 

. - 2 - . . 

0 0 

Memorandum to Mr, Felt 

Re: ABA Criminal Justice Advisory Committee on the Police Function; Initial Meeting 


use of the Polygraph. The Committee agreed that these investigative techniques should all 
be covered since there was no logical reason for excluding any single one. ! 

Committee next decided to defer any study of publicity in criminal cases since i 
a special ABA committee is now looking into this matter. Al^o, it will defer any inquiry 
into police dealings with mentally or physically ill and juveniles, in view of the greater 
priority needed for study of police recruitment, qualifications, training and tenure and j^g I 
electronic and related investigative techniques. hic i 

Final topic considered by Committee was whether any attention should be given to 
problems facing police as a result of inability to prosecute certain offenses or categories of 
crimesi I who has been assisting in a study of local police problems, felt 

police face definite difficulties because of refusal of prosecutors to entertain prosecut ion in 
certain type s of cases (example, adultery, certain homosexual offenses, etc. ). Also, I 

Isaid some judges have reprimanded police ior bringing certain cases before them 
and have arbitrarily indicated they would throw any such cases out in the future. Judge Au^' 
toldf^ I he didn’t feel Committee should get into question of specific types of crime 
or specific statdes because it was well known that certain legislation was difficult to enforce ; 
because of local customs and public opinion make such laws unpopular. Commissioner ; 

Murphy surprised me saying that he didn’t think local police had any problems with | 

prosecutors. Murphy said in New York City he considers himself (Murphy) the chief law \ 
enforcement officer and although it is a fact that the 5 district attorneys and some judges i 
try to tell police what to do or refrain from discussing certain things, Murphy and his men | 
pay no attention to them. Although the Committee laughed at this, to me it seemed Murphy ; 
hurt law enforcement’s image seriously before this group because the Bureau for years has i 
been preaching the need for cooperation and greater understanding between police, ? 

prosecutors, judges and the public, and Murphy’s pompous statement left the impression | 

that the police are a self-sufficient, sacrosanct group unto themselves. In fact, Murphy ; 

made another unfortunate comment in my opinion when we were discussing the need for j 
search warrants since the decisions of recent years (Mapp v, Ohio, etc. ). Murphy indicated 
that now the police must go to the judge and give him specific information before he will 
issue a search warrant; that in the past year they have applied for about 8, 000 warrants with | 
an average refusal of 20% because of insufficient justification, Murphy said prior to this I 
change, the New York Police hadn’t been required to obtain more than a handful., of wariants 
since the search warrant statute was passed in the early 1800s and that even when they ap- ; 
plied for one previously they could fabricate any facts in order to get it. The impression j 
Murphy created was that the police had been completely ’’free wheeling” prior to the Sipreme| 
Court decision and Committee could have used his statement as an argument showing why 
the Supreme Court had been justified in clamping down on the police. ' 

hi answer to this question of whether the Committee should get into the area of 
problems confrontmg police in getting prosecutions, I pointed out I did not see howfliis i 
matter could be ignore^-Isajd there are many facets to this problem and in some cases 
prosecutors arbitrarily/ ^o prosecute, in other cases they had been justified in enumerat- . 
ing a policy excluding certain categories of cases because of manpower consideration or : 
work deserving greater attention. There were also judges-who were unjustifiably arbitrary ' 

•“* 3 •• 

♦ m i ^ ^ 1 “ 

0 o 

Memorandum to Mr. Felt ' 

Re: A6A Criminal Justice Advisory Committee on the Police Function; Initial Meeting ' 

or who, may thow cases out because of prejudicial viewpoints. I also emphasized we could i 
not ignore the fact that many difficulties in local prosecutions stemmed from factors of | 

influence or corruption and this Committee would be ignoring its mandate if it closed its * 

eyes to this problem. I saidi felt the Committee should take cognizance of all possible 
factors creating problems in prosecutions and enumerate guidelines for the police which 
would enable the blame to be placed wherever it belonged and provide standards for cor- 
rective ation. At this point, the discussion stopped and the consensus was that the Com- 
mittee will include this matter. | 


No definite date for the next Committee meeting has been set, but possibly it i 
will be some time in April, 1965. hi the meantime, the staff members of the Committee ■ 
are. going ahead with their research and gathering of data. | 

CONCLUSION: tt seems obvious the work of this advisory committee is most important 

to law enforcement. At the same tin^e, in view of the advisory committee's ' 
general policy to avoid duplication it is essential we keep abreast of the related studies | 

going on, such as the ALI study, the work of the International Association of Chiefs of ^ 

Police in the field of police training, recruitment and qualifications, the work of the I 

President's Crime Committee, and any others. We must be constantly represented in ^ 
these Committee sessions because it is obvious we cannot rely on others to represent our • 
interests. \ 


RECOMMENDATION: That the Bureau continue to actively and closely follow all phases 

of the study on the police function. 






e#t»ONA| fOlM NO^ 
y tikf tt*a |9«nOM 
X' C$4 C(N. IfO. NO. 

fl LNUT 


. y^- 


, O. FELT^jv 
H. L. ED\7Am>njl\^ 

PATE; January 3, 1005 






Ca ,1/5/35 1 met v/ith Chief Ju(^e J. Edv/ard Lumbard of tho U. S.. Circuit Coart of Ap- 
peolG Ifi New -York to confidentialiy advise .him of the, bach^^oun'.' of i members of tne 11- 
y committee appointed by Lumbard to make reconmeaa,:I,/r-j for miniraam 
stard-rds in the field of the police function: U. S. District Ju f ;;o Richard 3. Austin of Chicajjo , 
Clramaa cf the advisory^mmittee; U.S. Circuit Court Jud“e George C. Ldv/ards, Jr. , a:.i 
Alt* ’ley Edward BennetrWilliams, advisory committee iiitinber..a Judge Lumbard is Chair' 
i-an ci. the over-aii AM committee to formulate minimum standarw for the administration 
o! --liiinal justice. The advisory committee on police function is 1 of 6 wd^rsory committooi* 

^ .rich will be making recommendations in five different area-s cf criminal law. Lumbard hac 
:.3 0.13 else with him but I had SAC V/interrowd sit in v/ith me., 

I told Judge Lumbard the Director had viewed Lumbard’s cor.*: mitt go v/ith great Liter est 

.ca'dse the Director has been actively concerned over the years \/id. 
roving law enforcement but this study would be hopeless unlt;ss It w: 
cl,i3ctive group and unless it took ^ ecial pains to insure thit the ri d 
."'bred to an equal degree with the rights of the criminal. I the.! icli 
Lhcctor had approved my serving on the advisory committee to rtud 
>11/ dier assurance that there Would be a preponderance of unbioec-d 

: tt'crj.tnenmg im~ 

, inaCa by a bal:.r.Cv.d,, ' 
cx oociety .‘e.,.- 
Lumb:r:l l.r.: 'esu 
the police rcl:.^ b. t ^ 
c --ectiye merA'^ore.^^C 
cm-; was very ^ 
r.xihr and sei : . i ' 

I" Loa mentioned that 3 members did not, seem in this category. Larnbrm-; was very . 

T. ),/ the Director’s interest. He said he had oonsultoa L.c LIr. -vtor e .*4 Ihr and sei : . i , 

' Aviduals recommended by the Director had been appohJ od. Lurabara .--tated as Fea : ' 
dbdge and previously as U. S. Attorney h0 was aware cf ihs'i good the Dirouc. r 
b: 1 done for law enforcement and hoped that through mo and r-iy the Bur^u mi 
available the Director’s vast experience would!,- rry.ilj-blo for the committo.,^ ^ 

'y in all areas, althc^^h he fe^the^^^^^ommlAv ^ Oa pc-ico * 0 most impox Al.' ) 

i then related conf^^^^^SS^ient background informmic’' cn .u ' ig Williams, ' 
I' and Austin. iLm^^sjg^d V/illiams has besii a ni',.: msv t.m drhxiifiaLLdw vm 
’.aCii for years, has a naiionally established reputation, as a dof * . ro L'x ir in crLninal 
. or, ar.d although he a civil liber h-rian, and rooint 

ion it ,esL3ntial to have such views on the committoo to provide balanoo m* - insure a 
^ 4. ' fi 4S y/ere represented. Lumbard has never inA Judge _ . ar.'_- saidim. ■ d ‘ 
4.^ : ri several prcniineiit members of Uie jum, / as a ^ son L. xm,. ' ’ g = 

m sc, c*:. the bench, ^md v/ho had served as Police Cnmminm.or sr in A. ,’rnpor - ^ 

n 4- -irolt. Lumbard said hs learned Edwards had boo.i . j.filL ' : 1 , _.nely A . -I g 

jr-v, . mt this was daring his younger days. He van tdJby p,;n^4o .. ,J,‘'Dittha 
I - : . DaLoach 1 - 2dr, Casper 1 - bir. Gale u ■ o i 

* b ?. I.nsen (Att; Mr. Scatterday) HIA:n;nL:,v/m3 vL ' cj® .>>, 

cx t.,.c 
rn Lv 

oai HHtra s.Q’ ^ 



rcoint . 

. 'insure :-4 
- - said b. . 

K- con L. i’ 
In' sit the 

7 9 FEB 4-1 


O 1 




llomoiandum to Mr. Felt 

Ho: AEA's Special Committee on Minimum Standards of Criminal Justice 

I:ad done an effective job as Police Commissioner. He said Edv/ards had a reputation for te- 
b/j on the side of labor but here ^ain he felt this would give the committee balance. Lum- 
bard said he didn't know Edwards had spearheaded a denunciatory- resolution against the 
Blrcctor following his ABA speech at Los Angeles in 1958. He ended his views on Edwards 
by i,ayLng that apparently Edwards* background was not too derogatory for he had been ap- 
pohtM to the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals within the past year. I told Judge Lumbard we 
weren’t objecting to the committee having balance, but our concern was that these 2 men 
7/cuid not entertain an objective viewpoint and might tend to sabotage the committee's wonv. 
Judge Lumbard said that he could not revoke their appointments now but he certainly would 
be alert to these 2 men in the light of the confidential information given him and he would 
i insure, as Chairman of the over-all committee, that they v/ould not foist any unbiased view- 
; pomts on the committee. 

Regarding Judge Austin, I was careful to limit the information given Lumbard to 
vsJt obtained from other than highly confidential technical sources. I said Judge Austin had 
a reputation among our informants of being a bitter foe of Jaw enforcement and he was not 
oeyond approach for a "fix” to influence cases on which lie sat as Judge; information indica- 
ted Judge Austin was beholden to racketeers in Chicago. Lumbacd said this was the first 
d;>rogatory information he had received concerning Judge Austin; thal he did not know Austin 
personally, but his name had been highly recommended becausie Austin had been very in- § 
strumental in making noteworthy reforms and improvement^/ in (he criminal code of Illinois, 
resulting in a model penal code about 2 years ago; also Austin r-evicusly been in the 
State's Attorney's Qfitice in Illinois and was reported to have prosecuced many 'criminal i 
cases. Lumbard said not only v/ere key people in niinois, cornpliiuentary of Austin but he 
also checked the ABA investigative report on Judge Austin in connection with his appoint- 
iment as a Federal Judge in 1961 which had nothing derogatory in it. sked Whether this 
I derogatory data had been supplied at the time Judge Austin wao appoirsted to the Federal 
I Bench. I told him some of it v/as in our report but most had come after his appointment. 

Lumbard asked if we knew any case Austin had "fixed. " I tolu nim that we had 
jTome indication he was not completely impartial in the Eoffa trial in Chicago and also he 
j; (^d ruled favorably to Chicago Top Hoodlum Sam Giancano. I told Lumbard it was not 
mown what the Department would do in the Hoffa matter because it V/as pending appeal. 
I told Judge Lumbard he could well appreciate much of cur information came from confi- 
dential Informants and was not susceptible of openpreof but if any of luic information was 
over nurnciently establish^ concerning Judge Austin and resulted in nbmij procc 
lajibst him, fhis would stigmatize any ABA committee Judge Aimtiii han Oiiaireo..^ 
jh vnbard said he wanted to discuss Austin's situatior. with ABA .i-resident Lewis F 
I'* ^ ^esraed to doubt anjithing could be done to remove Austin as Cnairman, particularly 

the information against him was based on confidential so mens 

Lumbard ended by stating he v/as deeply appreciative the, Lirtmor had seen fit 
' :o bring this information to his confidential atteijtion. He felt the inform; .tion made all 
i i mere encouraging that the Director had made av' liable an , cLicI a to serve on i , 

\ . . .ce. He assured me he would be grateful ior any additional infoim-ation at ’ 

, . U:.* uighthave a bearing on any of the cemmirme members or tae committee's delib.*,,- 
I tions.; He promised to be especially alert tc these c aestionahb ' maividuals because -o 




iloaiCi'andum to Mr, Felt 

?.e: ABA'g Special pommittee on Minimum Standards of Criminal Justice 

Ti^aated to malm certainih^ the- committee's study and recommendations would be balanced 
did objective. 

f Judge Lumbard also said after the comrnLtee begins to actively function he hoped 

' t v/ould be possible^for him ('Lumbard) to meet v/ich the Diredor in V/ashington and get the 
i^enefit of the Director’s y/isdom and e»)ericnce. i told him 1 was sure the Director would 
be happy tO meet with him if the Director was in Washington at such time as Lumbard hadl 
occasion to come to V/ashington. 


Judge Lumbard also furnished me a copy of the membership on the other 4 
ad'-TSory committees’? The indices are separately being checked on these names and the 
results will be sent through in a supplemental memorandum. 

E was my impression the meeting with Lumbard was beneficial. He nov7‘ knows 
3 cf the 11 men on the police Advisory Committee are highly questionable; also that the 
pir'ctor v/ill be watching the v/ork of this committee with keen interest. V/e will have our 
cjLiculties on the con. jiittee but should be able to provide the balance throu^.the other 
members and in the event of any apparent bias against law enforcement by Austin, Edwards 
or Williams, we should be able to priyately ajppeal to Lumbard as over-all Chairman, and 
0 to ABA President Lewis Powell. 








- 3 - 

ornoMAt roiM ho. to 






Mr. Ros 


G, H, Scatterdayl^yi^’ 


yfc Tolsoi^ 

1 - ^Ir, 

1 - Jlr. DeL-ij^ch 
1 - Mr. Rosen 
1 - Name Check Section 
W= November 2, 





Reference is made to my memorandum captioned as above 
dated October 23, 1962. 

% wife attended the above luncheon as indicated in 
referenced memorandum. 


Edward Bennett Williams. Washington, D.C.^ attorney,- 

I was one or the two principal shakers. wife advised me that 
Williams made no mention of the Director or the Bureau and made 
no critical remarks concerning them. The theme of his talk dealt 
with international relations pointing out that the "United States 
is governed by laws - not men, while in the Eoviet Union men with 
power are the Law. He commented that the United Nations was a 
court which was powerless to implement its judgment and indicated 
a world court would not solve the world's problems inasmuch as 
the Soviets would be represented by dedicated communists with 
whom we have no community of ideas. He further contrasted the 
two countries by pointing out that our moral code is based on 
God^whom the Soviets reject. 

He indicated the usual common denominator for settling 
problems was the Law, but there is no agreement between the two 
countries as to what constitutes "Law." He indicated the only hope 
for the, world is to find the common denominator which he indicated . 

should beithe love of parents for their children which would prevent 
destruction of the world. 

. The other principal speaker was Art Buchwald, a satirical 
I columnist: who writes in the "Washington Post and Times Herald." 

I Buchwald made no comments concerning the Director or the FBLV 



■/ jI ■ 

NOV 6 1962 

. GO? 

























August 5, 1966 

Honorable Manrin Watson 
Special Assistant to the President 
The White House 
Washington, p, C. ^t-t. mPORMATioN coMT.’Wn^ 

piopSsrkl ^ 

Dear Ur. Watson: 

B V3/g3<^. 










I thought the Pre^dent might be interested in 
knowing that Edvard Bennetr%il llams , well-known Washington, 
D. C., attorneyTiauHng'W^^ has represented 

individuals comprising the elite of the hoodlum, hierarchy 
of the United States. 

Over the past- four years, Williams has repre- 
sented, among other national crtoinal pers^onalities, the 
following Individuals who are actively engaged as, leaders 
of. La Cqsa. Nostra or who are closely affiliated with that 
nefarious criminal organization. , , ^ ^ r-^ a / 

REC-63 , 

Williams successfully represented Frank Costello 
of. New York in deportation proceedings brought against hiti 
by the Government, At the time, Costello was the leader 
of the particular La Cosa Nostra group of which the late," 
notorious Lucky Luciano was the original leader prior to 
his conviction of compulsory prostitution charges and subv* 8 1966 
sequent deportation to his native Italy, Costello yras 
succeeded as leader of this La Cosa Nostra group the • ' •*" 

•even more notorious. Vito Genovese, who was represented by 
Williams in an appeal from a narcotics conviction in argu- 
ments before the Circuit Court of Appeals and the United 
States Supreme Cburt. The latter- court finally, in 1965, 
afiirmed the conviction of Genovese, who is currently 
incarcerated at the United States*. Penitentiary in Leavenworth, 

KansasV seizing a 15-year sentence. 

In 'ia bank rohbery case involving 

Wiliams managed to have the 'Case dropped.** “[ 

La Cosa Nostra member ’'Charlie* the B lade” ;TQuri n^»' 

I ‘is^i 


NOTE: See memo J, H. Gale to DeLoach, captioned ’’Edward Bennett 
'Williams, » dated 8/5/66, CLG:djg/ . J j-y 

62-98896 ajy L ^ / 0 w/ . 

s . / vvimclo 



jelivered to Mildred Stega}! 


‘‘ p 5 

Honorable. Marvin Watson 

the same individual Tvhoi with Marshall Calfanoi Chicago 
La Cobh Nostra mem ber, endeav ored to extort money irom 
■ millionaire gamble d" I in Las Vegas, Nevada, and was 

successiully tried and convicted for the offense. 

Williams successfully defended Felix "Milv/aukee 
Phil” Alderlsio in an extortion trial'held in Miami, Florida, 
in 1964. Alderlsio is one of the most vicious and notorious 
La Cosa' Nostra members of the Chicago underworld . In 
April of 1965, Williams vfBs attorney for the defense in the 
extortion trial brought against Alderlsio, Ruby Kolqd^and 
Willid Alderman in Federal Court in Denver, Colorado. The 
last named two. are prominent Las Vegas, Nevada, gambling 
casino figures and intimate associates of hoodlum Meyer 
Lansky, who controls many of those casinos behind. the scenes. 

The trial in Denver resulted in conviction of all three. 

Williams, during the trial, "allegedly represented only Ruby 
Kolod of the Desert Inn, Lhs Vegas, Nevada, but confidential 
Information was obtained indicating that Williams took an 
active part in preparing Alderisio/s defense. This c^e is 
now on appeal and Williams 'has 'been active in attempting to 
overturn the convictions on the grounds that evidence was ' 
illegally, obtained by the Government. This case was based 
entirely on wholly legally admissible evidence. 

Several of the Las Vegas gambling casinos with 
underworld connections in Chicago, New York, Miami and the 
West Coast have been represented by Williams. In various 
proceedings, Williams has- been retained as either counsel 
or assistant counsel- by representatives of the Sands, 

Desert Inn and Starduqt Hotel casinos.* He currently repre- 
sents Edward Levinson of thq Fremont Hotel in a civil suit 
filed by Levinson ahd the Fremont- Hp tel against FBI Agents 
and' the telophdne comp(any. These -casinos' have close 
connections with La Cosa Nostra hoodlums throughout the 
country in that funds, "skimmed” from the casinos are being 
funheled to members of the organization in Flo'rida,. New York, 

Now Jersey and California. These are casinos dominated by 
the notorious hoodlum Meyer., Lansky, who directs the distribution 
of the "skimmed” funds to various hoodlums, as well as into 
numbered bank accounts in Switzerland where they are deposited 
for his own benefit. Confidential sources have indicated that 
during his managership of the Fremont Hotel, Levinson regularly 
"skimmed" approximately $125,000 each month from the casino’s 
gambling proceeds. 

- 2 - 


Honorable Harvin Vatson 

Williams, also reprosentod Joseph "poc'*StaOher 
in an Internal Hovohuo Service case, .which resulted in 
Stacher entering a guilty plea and voluntarily' accepting 
deportation rather than a prison s.chtence< Stacker is a 
notorious hoodlum originally from New Jersey who later . 
located himself in California. Although not a member of 
La Cosa Hostra, Stacher is closely associated with the 
leaders of that organization, in particular Gerardo, Catehaj 
Newark, New Jersey^ who is acting ^*boss” of tne Vito Genovose 4 # 
La Cdsa Nostra gtovxp. Catena is one of the hoodlums who'^^. 
has been regularly receiving ’’skimmed” fends* from,, the 
Las Vegas gambling casinos Controlled by Meyer liansNy . ^ . 

In the Spring of 1965, when Samuel M. Giancana,. 

La Cosa Nostra 'loader of Chicago's criminal underworld, 
was summoned before a Federal grand jury in New yoj?k City, 
Williams again appeared on the scone as counsel. He reappeared 
in connection with Giancana’s interests in May of 1965 when 
Giancana was called before a Federal grand jury in Chicago r 
Despite Williams’ efforts, Giancana was committed to the 
custody of- tho^ Attorney General for' civil contempt., 

^ s- ^ * 

In view of representation by Williams of so 
many notorious racketeering personalities and his prominent 
connection with other affairs in the District of Columbia,^ 

I felt, that you might desire to bring this pattern of “ 

Williams' activities to the attention of the president. ■ , 

Sincerely yOurs, 

* 3 

Kin Ko. *0 

CU CiM. 1(0^ NO. 3T 


$010*) 04 



TO : 





1 - LCr. DeLoach 
i - ivir. Gale 

DATE: August 4, 1966 

1 - Mr, Wick 
1 - Mr. McAndrev/s 


Tiottct — 
Tclo. Roo» 
Gcr.dy — — 




Senator* Ed Long called at 11:00 a. m. this morning. He wanted 
to let us know in confidence that the President had called him down to the White 
House yesterday. During the conversation, the President asked Long, why he- 
had not publicly released a copy of the memorandum which Mortimer Caplin, 
head of internal Revenue in 1961, had sent to Bobby Kennedy while he was 
Attorney General. The President stated that it was quite- important that this 
memorandum be given out. Long stated he told the President tnat he was just 
as anxious to embarrass Kennedy as was the President and that the memorandum 
would very definitely be given out at some public hearing in the future. 

Long stated that while he was in with the President he showed the 
President a couple of microphones which had been concealed in aspirin tablets. 
The President v;as very intrigued and asked to examine one. 

long also told me that columnist Marquis Childs had been in to 
see him last week. Childs told Long that he wanted to know why Long’s . 
Committee had not held hearings regarding the FBI’s usage-of microphones in. 
Las Vegas. Long replied to Childs that the FBI had been very decent and honest 
with him and his Committee and that he had no intention whatsoever of holding 
hearings concerning the FBI. Long told me that he also mentioned to Childs 
that he had no intentions of embarrassing the FBI at a time when such hearings 
would be of great assistance to Edward Bennett Williams in winning a law suit , 
for his client, 'Levinson. - , 

Childs thought the matter over for a moment and told 3Long that 
. after getting the facts he thoroughly understood the situation. He stated- that he 
li^eed with Long that hearings concerning the FBI should not be held. 

i Action: ' 




For record purposes, 
tr *8 Atrrv 


'/{ ‘ 





<^T>T/-*TKf«T T?TTI7T> txr 

' MTU 


* fir 

On May Si, i8S6, X ©aw Judge Edward M. Curran. Judge Curran 
Mormed me that on the prelaws Sunday he had attended a cocfctail party at 
the homo of Edward Beonetflvuiiams. the Washington attorney^ Hp stated 
ho arrived a llt^aEaid^ most of the guests and though some had sirca^ 
arrived, V/ilUams was making a statement to a half dozen or more persons 
to the effect that ho had traveled to New York 6a a recent occasion with 

iormor Attomsy Geaer^ iCenuedy and that they both discussed the recent 
xnemoranto filed by tho Solicitor Goneral before the Supremo C<wt in 
connection with the mlcrophono' covei’age in the Black' Case. Williams stated 
to thoso to whom ho v/aa tiiat Kennedy had informed him that he, Kenncdyf 

had never h^ any knowledge that tho Bureau v/as using any electronic devices 
la connection with its work and that he, Kennedy, had as a so-calied aco card 
the assurance of former Assistant Director Coui^oy Evans, who had been the. 
Jlaisoa representative with the Attorney General for the Bureau, and that 
Mr. Evans had indicated that ho, Mr* Kennedy, had never been advised o£ 
the use 61 microphone coverage in any cases. 

'Williams seemed particularly gleeful because he believed this ^ 
placed the Director of the Bureau in a moat embarrassing position and placed 
the entire onus for tho use of microphones on the Director of the ‘Bureau. 


Coupon » 



Rosea — ^ 


Tovel . 


•Tele. Rooa . 



I told Judge Curran tiiat the statement made 1^ former Attorney 
General Kennedy was absolutely untrue and that the statements attributed to 
former Assistant Director Courtney Evans were absolutely untrue in that we 
had written documentary proof in a number of memoranda dictated by Evans 
which, in turn, wero transmitted to the Attorney General advising him of tho 
use of microplioae coverage as one of tto techniques used by the Bureau in 
— jt^war against or^uiized.crixi^.. 1 told Judge Curran that the Attorney Ge n e r al 


145 m 10 t96P , 



smr FROM D. o.^ 






June 8,. 1986 

Memorantefor Mosorfi* Toison,, D&Load}, GaIo,'Wl<&, Sullivan. • . * 

had oa ono occasion ^pressed Ms pleasure that the Bureau vras usii^ microphonee ; 
in its campaign against organized cr^o and that the Attox^uey General had^ in 
fact, .signod a momorandam in his.o\m handwriting authorizl^ the use ot suclx ' 
microphones. , , . ' • ^ 

Judge Corraao^essed amazement that lonner Attorney General ' ’ . : 

. . Kenne^ and fpm<^ Assistant Director Evans would bo making such statements ' \ 

when tho written record completely disproved ^e statements made. ■ ( 

I , ^ ^ ^ v' 

4 ^ t * H » ' ^ ^ / 

/ . Very truly yours, • , . . ^ 

Jdhh'Bdgar Hoover 
‘ Director' 



Memorandum to Mr. DeLoach 

In accordance with the Director's approval, the 
Las Vegas Office transmitted these logs to the Bureau, where 
they were received on the morning of January 3, 1966. 

Personnel of the Criminal Intelligence and Organized Crime 
Section have reviewed these logs and on the basis of avail- 
able information there does hot appear to be anything ^ in the 
logs which would have any bearing on any criminal action 
presently pending by the Department against the individuals 
involved in this coverage. The logs do report extensive, 
information concerning skimming operations, personalities 
involved in these operations, hoodlum infiltration of Las Vegas 
casinos and efforts on the part of casino owners to insure the 
election of state officials, well disposed to the Nevada 
gambling casinos. 

Edward Bennett Williams, of course, in offering to 
settle this suit in exchange for a review of these logs is 
Ion a fishing expedition to determine the extent of the infor- 
Imation developed by the Bureau through these sources. He 
does represent or has represented most hotorious hoodlum figures 
in this country, including Joe Stacher, Sam Giancana, Milwaukee 
Phil Alderisio, Vito Genovese, Franlc Costello and such other 
personalities as Bobby Balcer, James Hof fa and of course the 
casino owners in Las Vegas. We feel, therefore, that even though 
Williams might succeed in obtaining a review of these logs • •. 

by persisting in the civil action or other criminal actions 
brought against his clients, that we should not volunteer this 
information to him. Y/e do feel that the Department has a 
legitimate reason in requesting the. opportunity to review thes^, ... 
logs- in order to fully represent the Bureau in this m^er in 
Las Vegas, With the Director's permission certain of these 
logs have been previously reviewed by the Department in connect- 
ion with the contemplated criminal action against Bobby Baker. 


■ * 

There is attached for approval a memorandum to the 
Attorney General outlining the disadvantages of making avail- 
able information obtained by our Las Vegas soux’ces to 
Edward Bennett Williaius and advising the Attorney General that 

OfTI^At fOtM NO. 
OtA OIN. ttO. NO, 


0 . 



r : Mr# DeLoach 
J* H* Gai< 

DATE: February 16| 196 





William Hundley of the Organized Crime- and 
Racketeering Section of the Department called this 
morning to advise that an agreement had been reached ^ 
whereby motions to dismiss this civil suit against l < 
telephone company and FBI personnel in Las Vegas had 
been continued by agreement of counsel from February 18, 
1966, to March 18. 1966^ 


1 - Mr. DeLoach 
1 - Mr. Mohr 
1 - Mr. Rosen 
•1 - Mr. Gale 
1 - Mr. McAndrews 
1 - Mr. P. J. Mohr 

(V) ^ • . 

*>♦ 1t,». 

Our Las Vegas office has.* been advised of this. 


^ /tVlONAt rOtM NO. 10 
V i; 

tviONAt rotM NO. 10 joio-ieo,' 

NAr ItIUOITiCII f ] , 

••■j r ‘ \n , - ♦•■- 

*1 DeLoach; 
V - Gale , 
1 - Rosen •■ 

1 - McAndrews 


AidM. : c. D. DeLOACH 

;DATE: December 28, 1965 

■ " t 

„ . ' :R0V|8VV8q/fuu^?\. ^ 

j'Tolson JL— ; 
iDcLoocK K- 
^Mohr r— 

•RoVcn ytfcJL 



-Wick — 

Tele. Room . 
Holmes — ^ 

, ' -H0V18V? ^ 

: SoeTopj&rM. )/pAt0'm^ 

‘subject: leased line microphones. ;^AS VEGAS Form wW 



' . - ^ 

When. Insoector Malley and -I were discussing th'e 'm^lf-^er 

of informant r I with the Attorney General -a-t 9\)a.m. 

this morning in his .office, following our rather heated 'discussion 
the Attorney General, sought to change, the subject ;to other matters; 

He said that Edward; Bennett Williams had called upon an ^ i 
assistant to discuss the matteir of the; civil suit brought, by Edward ? ; 
Levinson in Las Vegas gainst personnel of our office in that city . > 

' The Attorney General indicated that Williams, pairite.d]y told tne^ ^ 

Departmental representative that he was now willing, to drop this , 

isuit and all other suits involving the subject of leased line 
microphones; however, there would be conditions attached. One of \ 

' 1 the’ principal conditions involved, according to the Attorney General, 
was the fact that Williams would be given, for personal review ^ 

purposes, the tapes which were made in Las Vegas. The Attorney^ ^ 

General stated he was undecided as to what action to take in thi^* sX 
matter. He stated that obviously Williams would obtain this ‘ n- 

information anyway, if the current case was brought to trial. 

I asked the Attorney General if he didn't feel that . . ^ 

Edward Bennett Williams was bluffing. I told him' it seemed, to me ... \J 
’ that We held all the cards in this deal and that Williams WarS seeking 
jt ' a graceful -way outj'at the same time attempting^ to take advantage *5 
I vv of anything the Department' would give him. The Attorney General ^ ^ 

! pC replied that he didn't know. He stated the possibility that Willxamsg 
might win this suit, in that event* Williams would not only be . . 

victorious in the suit but additionally would obta-in the information g 
he is seeking; I asked the Attorney General if Williams would risk , Q, 
embarrassing his clients by having them go to .court m this matter, -g 
3 , The point was raised that the minute thevGovernment attempted to 
sit take aepositions, from Keople llto Levinson, it vould appear th,at 

Williams'and Levinson* . Would back down because they couldn t afford 
to reveal the very damaging information' they could be asked. The 
Attorney General stated this might be •fcsnie, howe vc ^ p — Wr ^ 

aSl Levinson in'-this case, is always given wide latitudS^yy /WTU^ cot^ ls* 
in answering .depositions . In other words, the j 

that some of the questions raised would not have to^'po /^nsivy^ou by^' 



V CDDihm 

46 JAN 




The Attorney General stated that, of course^ the 
Department vould not have any of the information in its files that 
was taken ’from the Las Vegas leased line microphones. I told him 
he was wrong, that the Department had considerable of this informa- 
tion up until the time that a “leak" had occurretd; and we had found 
it necessary to restrict such information. The Attorney General 
stated that Hundley (William Hundley of the Organized Crime Section) 
could not recognize whether such information had come f roin leased 
line microphones. I told the -Attorney General this wasn’t correct,, 
that obviously Hundley knew where such information was coming 
from and as a matter of fact at the recent U. S. Attorney's Conference 
one of the U. S. Attorneys inquired as to why certain types of 
information were not being furnished to the U. S. Attorneys when 
oxginally it had been. The Attorney General stated he did not know 
? this. , , 

The Attorney General indicated he would appreciate the 
FBI reviewing the tapes arid files and advising him of an opinion 
as to whether or not such information, if it were given to 
Edward Bennett Williams, would' be, injurious. I told him there 
was no doubt in my, mind, without a current review of the files, |t,.. 
would be dangerous to give such information to Williams. The 
^Attorney General again stated: ho'^did not know the answer to this 



The Attorney General stated he wanted us to know that there 
apparently had been a "leak" inasmuch as Williams had full knowledge 
of the identities of. the FBI Agents .who had made arrangements foir 
the leased line microphones. While .the Attorney General did not 
state so, he inferred that the telephone company personnel had fur-^ 
nished this information. • The* Attorney General also -added that it 
{ had been rumored that possibly FBI Agents had’ coached or- advised 
telephone company personnel to the, extent that they committed 
perjury while giving depositions in connection with a previous civil 
suit. I told the Attorney General, at this point, that this 
obviously was incorrect arid that our Agents would not conduct 
themselves in such a manner. The Attorney General again stated he 
would appreciate a review of the tapes arid files in connection with 
the Las Vegas leased line microphones and an opinion from the FBI 

as to furnishing such information to Williams. 

|l told him we would take the matter into consideration. 

We should consider this problem, from several angles. If 
\ we indicate to the Attorney General that the FBI sees no objections 
to furnishing information to Williams this will be dangerous from 
^several standpoints :(1) it will establish, a very t ...yad''.’':! prcc^idcnt-'s 
i of furnishing vital confidential information and' investigative 
. {‘techniques to an unscrupulous defense attorney} (2) Williams 

- 2 - 




represents many of the major hoodlums including such as Sam Giancana^ 
Vito Genovese, Frank Costello, Ed Levinson, all the casino owners 
in Las Vegas, and such personalities as Bobby Baker. Consequently, 
he would use this material for the purposes of defending these 
individuals in future suits filed against them.. There is no 
question but that Williams and the gambling casino operator's have 
I desired for some time to know just what the FBI has- concerning their 
'operations. This, of course, would give them the perfect opening. 

The obvious answer to the Department is in the negative. .. 

We should advise -the Department that a thorough review of our tapes 
and files has been made and that, we strongly feel that Williams 
should riot be given such information. The Department, of course, 
can use this determiriation on our part to weakly reply that they 
have no alternative but to go ahead* with the suit in Las Vegas which 
has been filed against our personnel. We think> however, that tlxiS' 
must be faced up to. The Department, obviously, can overcome this 
suit and have it withdrawn if. they stand up to V/illiams and flatly 
tell him the Government intends to take depositions from his clients.. 

In accordance with the Director ' s- instructions to me 
telephonically on 12/28/65, instructions -have been issued to the 
Special Investigative Division to completely review this matter 
including the logs,, tapes and files in question, and then prepare 
a memorandum to the Attorney Genera! indicating the inadvisability 

of furnishing such information to Williams*. 

‘ ' ' ' 

. ■ ^ 5 , ’ 

It should be. noted in this memorandum, that V/illiam Hundley, 
Chief of the Organized Crime, Section of the Department, called 
Mr.'McAndrews of the Bureau today and stated tha-t in handling the 
civil suit the Attorney* General had told Hundley that he felt the 
Department should review, the complete logs covering information 
received from bur microphone coverage in Las Vegas in order to be 
in possession of total information for defense purposes. Hundley 
requested that we obtain the logs from Las Vegas so that this review 
by. Departmental officials could be conducted. No commitment was 
made to Hundley in this regard* 

On the basis of Hundley's statement, and based upon my 
conversation with the Attorriey General, it is believed that we 
should turn over to t^e Department for review purposes the logs in 


(1) That, as indicated above, the .Special Invostigntivo 
Division review tapos^ filori and all ihfoymatiott to 




Las Vegas leased line microphones and summarize in memorandum 
form the basic points (a) the danger involved in furnishing such 
information to Edward Bennett Williams, (b) any infox'ma'tion 
contained therein which might represent ’’tainted evidence* The 
latter is being brought up in view of 

Department would obtain all such infoi’mation. it might loiter refuse 
to prosecute cases on the basis of information obtained by the 
FBI was done so in an illegal manner. 

2* A memorandum should be prepared to the Attorney General 
carefully summarizing the disadvantages involved in furnishing such ^ 
information to Edward Bennett Williams* 

3* The Department has a valid reason for requesting the 
logs based upon microphone information* In the past) however, the^ 
Department has reviewed similar logs in FBI space* The same policy 
should hold true in this case. Memoranda for the record will be 
submitted concerning such reviews* The logs currently are in 
Las Vegas and, if the Director agrees, instructions will be issued ■ 
immediately to that of f ice to ^have those logs shipped in the regular 
mail pouch to FBI Headquarters, 

- 4 - 

C*T»CNAV fOlM NO, Ip SPtP-t04 - 

mV If4> 

OSA CIN. lie, NO. V ‘ ^ ^ 



Mr. Belmoni 



J« H, Gal& 


• ■ 

^^ DATE: November 3, 


Mohr ■ ■ ■ ■ 
beLooch cL. 
bosper . — 
Collohon — ; 


Trotter _ 
TeleJ Room . 
Gandy ** 

Xk jc 

.Levinson is the President of the Freemoht Hotel and 
Casino in Las Vegas and Edward Torres is associated with 'the 
Riveria Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas as a major official* of 
that hotel. It was our microphone coverage of the Freen^ont *, 
Hotel which revealed extensive skimming operation:; put of- 
Las Vegas that was finaUy. compromised after we disseminated , 
this information by report to the /1^ 

The purpose of Williams* and | I visi t was to 

. discuss this tax case in the’ course of which I I stated that 

‘(he was aware of the .fact that Taicrophone coverage had been in » 
exis,tence in various casinos in Las Vegas and'he was confident 
'' ,i thatNthe FBI had not disseminated any 'information from these 

..... . 

l‘'-.Mr, Belmont 
1 -’’ih’. DeLoach 
- Mr. Gale 
't - Mr,.McAndrews 
1 - Mr . .Keily 

McA:tjm' ’ '• 

( 6 ). 


j P S"),!!.,?!,-. A.-";"' 6 'wdv'i'Hss 

5 CKOV 121965 

I 102 NOV 1? ‘Ofis 

OMGII^ Fn,Eb ^ 


Memorandum to Mr. Belmont 


microphones to| I 

giving rise to the present tax case against- Leyinspn and 

Torres. (This is true.) ’ • be ' 

I b 7 C 

According to I he believed that -as a result 

of microphones the Bureau developed complete information bf ' , 
the skimming of funds from these hoodlum dominated casinos 
and the channeling of those fu nds to h oodlums 'in^Florida and 
the Newark and New York area. I I stated that he ,was -confident 

that upon the receipt of such information that knowing the 
Bureau ) reports would have been prepared and sent to, the Department 
which was correlating, information on organized crime personalities. 

*s ^ 

it was I I theory that jEollowing the receipt of 

this information which established the truth of the skimming 
operations that Departmental officia ls, not named but presumably 

al. had dispatched I I 


Referral /Direct 

In the event additional information is received in 
this connection, you will be promptly advised. 



- 2 -!